Opinion

Katz v. Walkinshaw

  • 64 L.R.A. 236
  • 141 Cal. 116
  • 70 P. 663
  • 1903 Cal. LEXIS 486
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 28, 1903
Status
Published
On the bench
Angellotti, Shaw, Temple
Cited by
143 cases

The opinion

I concur in the judgment and in the views expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Temple on the former decision of this case as to the application of the doctrine of reasonable use to percolating waters. When properly applied, it appears clear to me that such doctrine will serve to protect the rights of the owner of realty rather than impair them.

I also concur generally in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Shaw in the majority opinion as to the same subject-matter, but several important questions are discussed that *Page 138

are not necessary to a decision of this case, and as to which the opinion herein cannot hereafter be considered as authority. As to such matters I refrain from expressing any opinion.

The following is the opinion of the court rendered in Bank on the former hearing, per Temple, J., November 7, 1902, referred to in the above opinion on rehearing: —

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.