290 IRRIGATION FARMING. 



by deed with usual formalities; but in ordinary cases 

 such was probably the law before the enactment. 



Yoiiker vs. Nichols, 1 Col. 551 



Hill rs. Newman, 5 Col. -445 



Schilling vs. Rominger, 4 Col. 100 



Barkley vs. Tickele, _' Mont. 59 



Smith vs. O'Hara, 43 Cal. 371 



The right when vested may in some cases be appur- 

 tenant to the soil upon which it is used, but generally it 

 is separate and distinct from the ownership of the land, 

 and a conveyance of the latter would not carry the water 

 right, unless mentioned in the deed ; the right, though 

 it can only be acquired by appropriation and use, may, 

 when acquired, be sold, transferred to and used upon 

 other lands. 



Fuller vs. Swan River P. M. Co., 12 Col. 17 



The place of use as well as the point of diversion 

 may be changed, when such change works no injury to 

 others. 



Fuller vs. Swan River P. M. Co., Supra 



The right is in no way dependent upon the locus of 

 its application to the beneficial and designed. 



Hammond vs. Rose, 11 Col. 526 



The lands irrigated need not be on the banks, nor 

 even in the vicinity of the stream from which the water 

 is taken. The water may be conducted across a water- 

 shed and onto a different drainage and yet the right is 

 preserved. 



Coffin vs. Left Hand Ditch Co., Supra 



The right is absolute and unqualified so long as it 

 exists. It may be lost by abandonment. 



Siber vs. Frink, 7 Col. 154 



Dorr vs. Hammond, M. 83 



Burnham vs. Freeman, 11 Id. 601 



But proof of non-user as evidence of abandonment 

 must be strong; failure for an unreasonable length of 



