My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC02405
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
14000-14999
>
WSPC02405
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:18:57 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:21:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8080
Description
Section D General Interstate Litigation - Colorado Not a Party
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
6/17/1929
Author
Unknown
Title
Colorado Reports Volume 86-P 197 - 077-29-91428 - Number 12127 - Handy Ditch Company Vs Greeley and Loveland Irrigation Company Et Al
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001j51 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It would not be accurate to say that the plaintiff can never get any <br />deoree for its reservoirs, junior to those of the defendant company, <br />and other 1 awful clailllAl1ts, but, as far as we are advised, they have <br />never asked for suoh, so we do not determine it. On the oontrary plain- <br />tiff's olaims in this court have been devoted to an effort to obtain <br />seniority over the defendant oompany's adjudicated reservoir rights, <br />but in this they have failed. Counsel for defendants points to the <br />many years that this oontroversy has been in the courts, in one form or <br />another. Be it so, nevertheless this opinion is not to be oonstrued <br />as a reflection on plaintiff or its oounsel in any way, for they took <br />the case just as it oame to them, and they haVe only advanoed here, with <br />manifest sincerity, and with ability and earnestness, a theory or inter- <br />pretation that they are oonvinced is oorreot. Unfortunately for them, <br />however, the questions raised are foreclosed by former adjudioations" <br />and by them we are bound. It is beyond our power to abolish the statutory <br />limitations as to time, discussed at length in Greeley & Loveland Irri- <br />gation Co. v. Handy Ditoh Co" supra. The three oases, the one now <br />before us, and those in the 60th and 77th Colorado Reports, should be <br />read together. <br /> <br />(7) Plaintiff's brief discusses at some length the allegations of the <br />complaint and first emended complaint, but they were superseded by the <br />second emended oomplaint and a.mendment thereto, and thereby beoa.me <br />plaintiff's pleadings. The essential principles involved, as far as <br />the decision is concerned, are the seme in all, but we have intentionally <br />oonfined ourselves to the last amended oomplaint and amendment thereto, <br />which took the plaoe of those tha.t went before. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Judgement affirmed. <br /> <br />MR. JUSTICE ALTER, I,m. JUGTICE C/,i,:PBELL and lJR, JUSTICE liIOORE oonour. <br /> <br />- - - <br /> <br />-4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.