# Katz v. Walkinshaw

> California Supreme Court · November 28, 1903 · 64 L.R.A. 236

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3300580

## Case

- **Full name:** LEAH J. KATZ, Executrix, Etc., Et Al., Appellants, v. MARGARET D. WALKINSHAW, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 28, 1903
- **Citations:** 64 L.R.A. 236; 141 Cal. 116; 70 P. 663; 1903 Cal. LEXIS 486
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence
- **Judges:** Angellotti, Shaw, Temple
- **Cited by:** 143 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3300580

## Opinion text

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: —

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3300580. Public record. Not legal advice.