TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gose v. Blalock

John M. Gose v. N. G. Blalock

Gose v. Blalock, 57 P. 342 (Wash. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 18, 1899
Docket
No. 3184
Judges
Dunbar, Reavis
Citations
57 P. 34221 Wash. 751899 Wash. LEXIS 242
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
APPEAL- — - UNCERTAINTY OF JUDGMENT-REMAND FOR MODIFICATION. In case the judgment of the lower court may give rise to uncertainty as to its scope, the appellate court has jurisdiction, in order to avoid such uncertainty, to remand the case to the lower court for the purpose of having the judgment of that court made more specific.
Summary
Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County.— Hon. M. M. Godman, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dunbar

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Dunbar, J.

A careful examination in detail of the record, which comprises between 500 and 600 typewritten pages, convinces us that we should not be justified in disturbing the findings of fact made by the referee, which findings were substantially adopted by the court. [Neither *76 ■would a particular analysis of this large volume of testimony serve any good purpose. The law governing the respective rights to the use of water by riparian owners and proprietors was, after mature investigation and deliberation, announced by this court in Benton v. Johncox, 17 Wash. 277 ( 49 Pac. 495 , 61 Am. St. Rep. 912 ), and we do not wish to disturb the rule there announced, and under the law laid down in that case the judgment in this case is warranted by the findings of fact. It is, however, contended by the appellant that, under the terms of the judgment, he is deprived of the use of the water of Mill creelc for the purpose of irrigating his riparian lands. We doubt if the judgment would bear this construction, but, in order that there may be no uncertainty in this regard, the case will be remanded, with instructions to the lower court to decree to appellant the use of such proportion of the waters of Mill creek as appellant’s riparian lands, viz., the Oifner tract, bear to the whole tract, viz., the Gose homestead, which is the S. W. -J of section 24, township 7 N. of range 35 E. W. M., and that the injunction be made subject to this modification. Neither party will recover costs of this appeal.

Gordon, O. J"., and Eullerton and Anders, JX, concur.

Concurrence — Reavis

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Reavis, J.

I concur in the result, but do not desire to sanction the conclusions announced in the case of Benton v. Johncox, 17 Wash. 277 ( 49 Pac. 495 ), as the correct construction of water rights in the arid area of this state.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 11923: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sander v. Bull135 P. 489 (Wash. 1913)
  2. Weitensteiner v. Engdahl215 P. 378 (Wash. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Weitensteiner v. Engdahl215 P. 378 (Wash. 1923)
  2. Sander v. Bull135 P. 489 (Wash. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Benton v. Johncox, 39 L.R.A. 107 (Wash. 1897) 45

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list