Case Name: FRESNO CANAL AND IRRIGATION COMPANY, Respondent, v. WILLIAM EDE COMPANY, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1907-12-03
Citations: 152 Cal. 453
Docket Number: S. F. No. 4376
Parties: FRESNO CANAL AND IRRIGATION COMPANY, Respondent, v. WILLIAM EDE COMPANY, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 4376.
In Bank.
December 3, 1907.]
FRESNO CANAL AND IRRIGATION COMPANY, Respondent, v. WILLIAM EDE COMPANY, Appellant.
CONTRACT TO SUPPLY AND PAY FOB WATER—REFORMATION.—Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company v. Bart, ante, p. 450, followed and approved.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order refusing a new trial. H. Z. Austin, Judge.
The facts in this case were similar to those in the ease of Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company v. Hart, ante, p. 450.
J. C. Bates, and William Ede, for Appellant.
Frank H. Short, and F. E. Cook, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This action is in all respects like the action of Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company, plaintiff and respondent, v. Marcus Hart et al., defendants and appellants, No. 4372, ante, p. 450, [92 Pac. 1010], this day decided. The defendant was the successor in interest to certain lands originally owned by Hart and affected by the water contracts in suit. • The cause has been submitted to follow the determination in the Hart case, and for the reasons there given the judgment and order are reversed and the cause remanded.