THE IK RIG ATI ON AGE. 



145 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



PRIORITIES. 



Since a priority may be measured both by volume and 

 time, the number of acres of land lying under the ditch which 

 it is proposed to irrigate is material, at least as to the ele- 

 ment of time. Bates v. Hall. Supreme Court of Colorado. 

 98 Pacific 3. 



DURATION OF APPROPRIATION. 



An appropriation of water is limited, in quantity as well 

 as in time, to the extent of the appropriation, and, where 

 water was taken from a ditch for mining only through the 

 winter months up to June 1st, the right of appropriation was 

 limited to that period. Davis v. Chamberlain. Supreme Court 

 of Oregon. 98 Pacific 154. 



APPROPRIATIONS. 



Where a water storage company made an appropriation 



recorded deed is void as against such subsequent purchase. 

 Stitink v. Sweetiuater Irrigation & Power Co. Supreme 

 Court of Idaho. 98 Pacific 297. 



DAMAGES FROM INSUFFICIENT SUPPLY. 



The evidence showing that defendants planted their land 

 to rice; that it came up to a good stand; that all except 35 

 acres of it died because of failure to receive water at the 

 proper time; that the land, if properly watered, would have 

 made from 15 to 20 sacks of rice per acre; and that the loss, 

 without fault on defendants' part, was caused by plaintiff's 

 breach of its contract to furnish the water necessary for cul- 

 tivation of the crop they are entitled to recover all damages 

 sustained. Stsk v. Gravity Canal Co. Court of Civil Appeals 

 of Texas. 113 Southwestern 195. 



WATER RIGHTS TRESPASS. 



Rev. St. U. S., Sections 2339, 2340 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 

 p. 1437), and Rev. Codes Mont., Section 4840 et seq., creating 

 and regulating water rights for irrigation, etc., while recog- 

 nizing the right of an individual to acquire the use of water 

 by appropriation, neither authorizes nor could authorize, one 

 person to go on the private property of another to make an 

 appropriation except by condemnation proceedings; the gen- 

 eral government having merely authorized the prospective 



Cement Aqueduct Across Pecos River, Carrying Water for Irrigation near Carlsbad, New Mexico. 



from a river of a given volume, which was junior to that of 

 a reservoir company for its particular reservoir, it was senior 

 as to all the waters of the river as against all subsequent ap- 

 propriators who diverted water from the river for storage 

 purposes. Windsor Reservoir &r Canal Co. v. Lake Supply 

 Ditch Co. Supreme Court of Colorado. 98 Pacific 729. 



NEGLIGENT LEAKAGE FROM IRRIGATION DITCH. 



If defendant negligently permitted water from its irriga- 

 tion ditch to escape onto the plaintiff's land, because of de- 

 fects in the ditch, or allowed the flow of the water to be 

 obstructed so as to cause it to seep through the ditch and 

 injure the land, defendant would be liable; the injury not 

 being damnum absque injuria. Paolini v. Fresno Canal & 

 Irrigation Co. California Court of Appeals. 97 Pacific 1130. 



UNRECORDED DITCH DEED VOID. 



Where S. took a conveyance of real property and paid a 

 valuable consideration therefor, and had no notice of an out- 

 standing unrecorded deed for a ditch and right of way 

 through the property, and recorded her deed of conveyance 

 prior to the recording of the outstanding deed for ditch and 

 right of way, under section 3001, Rev. St. 1887, the un- 



appropriator to go on the public domain for that purpose. 

 Prentice v. McKay. Supreme Court of Montana. 98 Pacific 

 1081. 



IRRIGATION DISTRICTS. 



Under act March 7, 1887, p. 35, c. 34, section 13, as 

 amended by St. 1897, p. 263, c. 189, declaring that the legal 

 title to all property acquired under the act providing for the 

 organization of irrigation districts shall vest in the district, 

 and shall be held by it in trust for. and shall be dedicated 

 and set apart to the uses set forth in the act, the legal title 

 to all the lands of an irrigation district organized under the 

 act is held in trust by the district, and the beneficial title is 

 in the owners of the land within the district, and land which 

 by reason of a change in the plans has become valueless for 

 irrigation purposes is impressed with a trust, and is, like the 

 other land of the district, exempt from execution. Tulare 

 Irrigation District v. Collins, Sheriff. Supreme Court of Cal- 

 ifornia. 97 Pacific 1124. 



CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IN IRRIGATION PROJECT. 



Decedent posted notices of appropriation of water, in- 

 tending to acquire a partly completed irrigation canal, and 



