THE IBBIGATION AGE. 



83 



original survey of public land and asserts a claim to the lands 

 by virtue of such mistakes, no one can complain or dispute 

 the title of the holders of a prima facie title. Little v. Will- 

 iams. Supreme Court of Arkansas. 113 Southwestern 340. 



PAROL PROOF OF TITLE 



Since many of the earlier water rights, acquired by ap- 

 propriation, and not by grant, have not passed by deed from 

 the original appropriators, parol proof of possession and use 

 of a water right is prima facie evidence of title. Bates v. 

 Hall. Supreme Court of Colorado. 98 Pacific 3. 



DAMAGES FOR DESTRUCTION OF CROP 



Where a lessor by breach of his covenant to furnish water 

 for irrigation caused the destruction of the lessees' growing 

 crop to the extent of rendering it worthless, the measure of 

 damages was the value of the crop at the closest market, 

 at maturity, less the cost of labor and attention that would 

 have been necessary to raise and market it there. In esti- 

 mating the damages, evidence of the value of matured crops 

 of the like kind planted in the same neighborhood was com- 



2448, and hence, in an action to enjoin the superintendent and 

 commissioners from closing plaintiffs' headgates and from 

 interfering with plaintiffs' taking water from a ditch, a com- 

 plaint which alleged that defenflants cut off plaintiffs' supply 

 and ran the water past their headgates for the use of ditcher 

 in another district, does not state a cause of action, since the 

 presumption is that plaintiffs' headgates were closed so as 

 to supply senior priorities further down the stream, as di- 

 rected by law. McLean, Water Commissioner, v. Farmers' 

 Highline Canal & Reservoir Company. Supreme Court of 

 Colorado. 98 Pacific 16. 



DETERMINATION OF PRIORITIES. . 



A suit to ascertain, determine, and decree the extent 

 and priority of a water right and appropriation partakes of 

 the nature of an action to quiet title to real estate. The 

 courts of Idaho, in ascertaining, decreeing, and protecting 

 property rights in water appropriations within the jurisdic- 

 tion of this state, may at the same time and for that pur- 

 pose inquire into and determine rights and priorities on the 

 same stream that are located and situated higher up the 



COMMITTEE INSPECTING TRAINLOAD OF BEETS. 

 Authorities Declare Keystone Land the Best in the West for Beets These Were Raised a Few Miles Lower Down the Valley. 



petent. Smith v. Hicks. Supreme Court of New Mexico. 

 98 Pacific 138. 



APPROVAL OF DITCH ROUTE BY SECRETARY OF INTERIOR 



Under Act March 3, 1891, c. 561, Sees. 18, 19, 26 Stat, 

 1095 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1570, 1571), granting right 

 of way for irrigating canals, ditches, and reservoirs over 

 the public lands to irrigation companies, upon the filing of a 

 map thereof and its approval by the Secretary of the Interior, 

 such approval is essential, and where it was refused as to a 

 reservoir because the site had been previously withdrawn from 

 sale or entry and reserved by the United States, the company 

 acquired no right or easement by the filing of its maps. 

 .United States v. Rickey Land & Cattle Co. Circuit Court, 

 California. 164 Federal 496. 



ACTION TO PROTECT WATER RIGHTS 



It will be presumed that a superintendent of irrigation of 

 a water division through the water commissioners under his 

 control distributes the water according to the priority of ap- 

 propriation, as expressly enjoined by 1 Mills' Ann. St. Sec. 



stream and beyond the state line, in order to fairly and 

 finally judicially determine the relative rights of the parties 

 and decree the extent of title and right of possession of the 

 subject-matter located and situated within- this state. Taylor 

 v. Hulett. Supreme Court of Idaho. 97 Pacific 37. 



Send $2.50 for The Irrigation 



Age one year and 

 The Primer of Irrigation 



