PULSE OF THE IRRIGATION INDUSTRY. 



241 



Adjudication of Priorities. Where an irrigation district is 

 divided by a legislative act without a saving clause, before the 

 adjudication of priorities therein in pending proceedings for that 

 purpose, the district court of the proper county in the new irri- 

 gation district had jurisdiction to determine the priorities in 

 such district. 



People v. Downer. (Supreme Court of Colorado.) 36 Pac 787. 



The Supreme Court of Montana holds that where one carrier 

 uses water appropriated for his land, but from time to time 

 diverts it through different ditches, the abandonment of one 

 ditch does not constitute an abandonment of the water right, so 

 long as the water continues to be diverted through another ditch. 

 And where one's appropriation of water is not more than enough 

 for his lands available for irrigation, his appropriation is not cut 

 down, by the subsequent appropriation of another, to an amount 

 sufficient to irrigate the land he had already under cultivation. 



Klienschmidt r. Greiser. 37 Pac. Rep. 5. 



Validity of Excessive Levy of Assessments. --The organization of 

 an irrigation district cannot be collaterally attacked in an action by 

 landowners to enjoin the collection of assessments by the officers 

 of the district. Under the Wright Act (section 22) which pro- 

 vides that the board of directors of an irrigation district shall 

 levy an assessment "sufficient to raise the annual interest on the 

 outstanding bonds'" of the district, such board has no power to 

 levy an assessment in excess of such an amount. A landowner 

 cannot enjoin the collection of an excessive levy of assessments 

 by the board of directors of an irrigation district until he has 

 paid the amount the board had the power to levy. 



Quint v. Hoffman. (Supreme Court of California.) 37 Pac. 

 Rep. 514. 



Construction of Contract to Furnish Water. A grantor con- 

 veyed a portion of a tract of land and also conveyed to the 

 grantee a certain portion of all the water rising on the tract, and 

 covenanted to suffer the water to flow to the grantee's lines 

 through a trench which the grantor was at the time using. 

 There was no way provided for measuring the water at the 

 grantee's line, but it was to be taken from a reservoir on the 

 grantor's land, being permitted to flow to the grantee in an 

 "augmented head" once in 10 days. The place of delivery of 

 the water was at tho reservoir, and not at the grantee's line, he 

 having an easement in the trench for that purpose. On 

 abandonment of . the trench by the grantor it was 

 the duty of the grantee to keep it in repair. The 

 "augmented head" provided for must be limited to the capacity 

 of the trench at the reservoir, and any change in the delivery 

 of the water from the reservoir, provided the discharge still 

 equaled the full capacity ot the trench at the reservoir, was per- 

 missible. The covenant for the delivery of the water was a cove- 

 nant running with the land. 



Bean v. Stoneman. (Supreme Court of California ) 37 Pac. 

 Rep. 777. 



The Supreme Court of Nebraska holds that a proprietor may 

 not collect surface waters on his estate into a ditch or drain, and 

 discharge them in a volume on the lands of his neighbor. 



Lincoln Street Railway Co. v. Adams. 60 N. W. Rep. 83. 



Sale of Stock of Irrigation Company Under contracts for the 

 sale of land with stock in irrigation companies, clearly express- 

 ing the intention that payment of the consideration covering 

 both land and stock shall precede the conveyance thereof, the 

 covenants for payment and conveyance are not dependent, even 

 as to the last installment of the price, when payable by install- 

 ments, but payment is a condition precedent to the right to a 

 conveyance, and an action for the price may be maintained with- 

 out conveyance or tender thereof, on allegation of readiness and 

 willingness to convey. Where payment of part of the first in- 

 stallment of the purchase price of the land is accepted, and both 

 parties afterward treat the contract as subsisting, the purchaser 

 cannot claim that it was terminated by his failure to pay in full. 

 A contract for the sale of land with a certain number of shares 

 of stock of an irrigation company, representing a corresponding 

 number of inches of water, the stock to be delivered and accepted 

 subject to the by-laws of the company, such statement as to the 

 quantity of water being matter of description only, does not en- 

 title the purchaser to water rights, as distinguished from stock, 

 but requires the vendor to deliver the specified amount of stock 

 in the designated company, which will attach to the land and 

 entitle the purchaser to the quantity of water represented. 



Loud v. Pomona Land & Water Co. (Supreme Court Rep. 928). 



ARIZONA DECISION. 



Uninterrupted adverse possession of water rights for five years 

 under a claim of right gives a valid title. 



Declarations made by parties claiming a water right that they 

 would not permit a person to have any or the water, if made in 

 the absence of such person and without his knowledge, are not 

 admissible in evidence against him in an action brought by such 

 claimants to recover damages for the water taken by him. 



Where one person makes declaration to another that a third 

 person is a joint owner with him in a water right, and such other 

 person, relying on such declaration, purchases the interest of 



*Furnished by W. D. Harlan, Washington, D. C. 



the third person, records his deed and enters into. possession, 

 the person making the declaration will be estopped from deny- 

 ing the right of such purchaser and those claiming under the 

 person who made sucn declaration will be thereby put upon in- 

 quiry as to the true state of such title. 



John G. Campbell and James M. Baker v. D. M. Shivers, 1st 

 Arizona Reports, 161. 



NEW COMPANIES. 



Arizona. Phxntx. The C9lorado Canal & Land Company 

 are reported as having filed articles of incorporation. 



California. San Ditnas. The San Dimas Irrigation Com- 

 pany will supply water to the San Jose tract and additions 

 thereto. 



Rediands. The New Bear Valley Irrigation Company. 



Los Gatos. Las Vegas Land Company, incorporated by W. 

 H. Cross, Walter Griswold, Los Gatos; Warren G. Tomilson, 

 Saratoga; J. M. Zollars, E. J. Crandall, San Jose. Capital stock, 

 $100,000. 



Colorado. Denver. An irrigation company has been or- 

 ganized under the charter granted the Greeley County Water & 

 Irrigation Company four years ago Capital stock, $5,000. 



Denver. The Clear Creek Pumping & Irrigating Company, 

 incorporated by Eugene Buchanan, Dixon Buchanan and W. E, 

 Crissman, will operate in Logan county, Colo Capital stock, 

 $50,000. 



Idaho. Pay ette. The Idaho Orchard Company, limited, in- 

 corporated by J. J Toole, F. C- Moss, David Gorrie, D. C. Chase 

 and I. R. Berry, The capital stock is $5,000. 



Kansas. Togeka. The South Fork Irrigation Company of 

 Ulysses, Kan. To construct and maintain dams and canals in 

 and along the South Fork and Cimarron river in Grant county 

 for irrigation purposes. Officers and directors as follows: 

 President, W. E. Hutchinson, Ulysses; secretary, J. T. Elwood; 

 treasuier, D. E. Nicholson Zionyille; T. H. Harris and L P. 

 Main of Zionville are additional directors. Capital stock, 55,000. 



Michigan. Kalamazoo. A company is now being formed by 

 Phelps & Bigelow, Smith & -Pomeroy, The Williams Manu 

 facturinjr Company and others to establish a plant for the manu" 

 facture of windmills. 



Nebraska. O'Neill. Rock and Brown counties, Nebraska, 

 have organized an irrigation company and propose to tan the 

 Niobrara, Snake and Plum rivers. The ditch will be turned over 

 to the county after the legislature passes the District law. 

 Capital stock $50,OOQ. 



Westcott. The Westcott Irrigation and Canal Company. It 

 is proposed to construct a ditch along the Middle Loup valley. 

 Capital stock $30,000. 



North Piatte.The South Side Irrigation and Land Company 

 will build reservoirs, canals and ditches and sell water and land 

 for irrigation purposes. Capital stock 375,000. 



Neligh . The Neligh Irrigation and Power Company. The 

 purpose of the corporation is to tap the Elkhorn river near the 

 Holt county line and convey water through a ditch to the Neligh 

 city limits, where it will be turned back into the river. Capital 

 stock $100,000. 



Sargent. Middle Loup Valley Irrigation and Canal Company, 

 with principal office at West Union, Custer county. To build 

 and operate main ditches and laterals for irrigation purposes 

 along the Middle Loup river and to furnish water along its line 

 in Elaine, Custer and Bailey counties. E. P. Savage, superin- 

 tendent, Capital stock $50,000. 



New Mexico. Sanfa Fe. The Espanola Irrigation Co. will 

 operate in the Rio Arriba and Santa Fe counties. The directors 

 are Thomas Smith of Las Vegas, Clayton G. Coleman, Thomas J. 

 Helm, T. F. Moore. C. W. Dudrow, R. E. Twitchell of Santa Fe, 

 and Jose Amada Lucero of Espanola. 



Oregon. Pendleton. Maxwell Irrigation Company reported 

 incorporated. 



Texas. Austin. The Horton Deep and Artesian Well Com- 

 pany, Dallas. Incorporators: Thomas F. Mclnnis and John Hall 

 of Dallas county and S. A. Horton, John M. iMms, H. L. Norris, 

 H. G Gough and Sam Hocker of Red River county. 



Wyoming^ Sheridan. The Colorado Colony Ditch Com- 



J. P. Maxwell of Colorado 

 are interested. It is proposed to build a dam on Cross Creek, a 



pany. Fred Tyler of Sheridan and I. P. Maxv 



are interested. It is proposed to build a dam pi 



tributary of Little Goose Creek, south of Sheridan, and use the 



water for irrigating and other purposes. 



Wisconsin. Afil-waukee. The Gothenburg Power & Irrgs- 

 tion Company, incorporated by William C. Quarles, George W. 

 Wilson and C. F. Wenz. for the purpose of constructing and 

 operating canals in Nebraska for irrigation and water power, con- 

 struct and operate dams, reservoirs, etc., power houses and appli- 

 ances for the transmission and sale of power, and the harvesting 

 and sale of ice. Tho capital stock is $150,000. 



