Pabst v. Finmand
California Supreme Court
190 Cal. 124, 211 P. 11 (1922)
- Written by Penny Ellison, JD
Facts
N. H. Finmand (defendant) was the riparian owner of land through which branches of the Eagle Creek flowed before they flowed onto the land of Charlie Lee Pabst and the Priors (plaintiffs). N. H. Finmand used the waters of Eagle Creek where they flowed over his property. This use was from a fork of the creek that did not border the Prior lands. Additionally, there was no evidence of any conflict between N. H. Finmand’s and Pabst’s use of the creek. H. H. Finmand (defendant) was a nonriparian owner of land north and west of the lands through which the creek flowed. H. H. Finmand used the waters of Eagle Creek to irrigate his land by means of two ditches. Pabst and the Priors brought an action to quiet title of both Finmands to the waters of Eagle Creek. The trial court ruled that N. H. Finmand had a prescriptive right against both the Priors and Pabst gained by adverse use of the water. Pabst and the Priors appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lennon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.