General
CHRYSTAL SPRINGS LAND AND WATER COMPANY v. LOS ANGELES
177 U.S. 16944 L. Ed. 720·Supreme Court of the United States·1900
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CHRYSTAL SPRINGS LAND AND WATER COMPANY v. LOS ANGELES.
APPEAL FROM' THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 41.
Submitted March 15, 1900.
Decided April 9, 1900.
Decree below affirmed on the authori ,y of the cases named in the opinion of the court.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. John Garber for appellants.
Mr. Walter F. Haas for appellee. Mr. S. O. Houghton was on his brief.
[MAJORITY — The Chief Justice :]
The Chief Justice :
■ Bill to quiet title to certain waters, water rights and works connected therewith. Bill dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and question of jurisdiction certified: Reported below, 82 Fed. Rep. 114; 76 Fed. Rep. 148.
Decree affirmed on authority of (1) Phillips v. Mound City Association, 124 U. S. 605; California Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U. S. 389, 395; New Orleans v. De Armas, 9 Peters, 224; Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U. S. 408; Muse v. Arlington Hotel Company, 168 U. S. 430. (2) Robinson v. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522; Florida Central Railroad v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321; Gold Washing Company v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199; Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454; New Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 U. S. 411, 424.