THE COMMOX LAW OF IRRIGATION. 



time to use the water may afford a presumption of inten- 

 tion to abandon the right, still such presumption may be 

 overcome by satisfactory proofs. 



Siber vs. Frink, Supra 



Aii intention to abandon may be shown in various 

 ways. It lias been held that an attempted verbal trans- 

 fer or sale of the right operates as an abandonment, as 

 it conveys nothing and manifests an intention to part 

 with the right. 



Smith vs. O'Hivra and Durkley vs. Tickele, Supra 



But it must be borne in mind that as abandonment 

 is a question of intention, the acts of the party to be 

 conclusive (unless there be some element of estoppel) 

 must be so very strong as to scarcely be susceptible of 

 explanation. The party will not be held to have sur- 

 rendered a valuable right, except upon evidence reason- 

 ably clear and satisfactory. 



Rominger vs. Squires, Supra 



Doubtless a party may also lose his right by non- 

 use, and as the right is regarded as realty, it is probable 

 that by analogy, at least, the laws of limitation and pre- 

 scription apply ; it seems that acquiescence in adverse 

 use during the period fixed by the statutes of limitation 

 would bar the right. 



Til ion Water Co. vs. Crary, 25 Cul. 504 



Davis vs. Gale, 32 Id. 26 



Smith vs. Logan, 18 Nev. 149 



Woolman vs. Garringer, 1 Mont. 535 



Crandal vs. Woods, 8 Cal. 136 



The continual use of water for beneficial purposes is 

 essential to the existence of the right ; and when the 

 right is lost either by abandonment or non-use, it goes 

 either to the next prior appropriator or reverts to the 

 public. 



