THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



613 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



RELATION BACK. 



Where the construction of irrigation ditches was 

 prosecuted with proper diligence, the rights acquired re- 

 lated back to the commencement of the work. IVhitcd v. 

 Cavin. Supreme Court of Oregon. 105 Pa- ; fic 396. 



PERCOLATING WATER. 



It is unlawful for one owning land bordering on a 

 stream to intercept percolating waters therein and apply 

 it to any use other than its reasonable use on the land 

 from which it is taken, if he thereby diminshes the stream 

 to the damage of those having rights therein. City of 

 Los Angeles v. Hunter. Supreme Court of California. 105 

 Pacific 755. 



RESERVATION OF WATER. 



One appropriating water under Const. 1879, for sale, 

 rental, or distribution, is but an agent of the public for 

 the distribution of such water to such members of the 

 public as may apply for them and pay him the legal charge 

 for the serivice rendered by him. Leavitt v. Lassen Irri- 

 gation Co. Supreme Court of California. 106 Pacific 404. 



BREACH OF CONTRACT. 



Continued refusal of one, to whom an irrigation com- 

 pany furnished water under a contract, to pay therefor, 

 is a breach of the contract, justifying the company in 

 treating u at an end, and suing in the absence of a legally 

 established rate, for the reasonable value of the services 

 rendered. Lassen Irrigation Co. v. Lang. Supreme Court 

 of California. 106 Pacific 409. 



PRIORITIES. 



Any person or number of persons may have an in- 

 terest in or become the exclusive owner or owners of dif- 

 ferent water rights, each of which rights may have had 

 their inception at different times, and in such cases the 

 order of their respective priorieties must necessarily de- 

 pend on the dates of the initiation of each particular right. 

 Whited v. Calvin.. Supreme Court of Oregon. 105 Pacific 

 396. 



POSTING NOTICES. 



Where defendants did all acts required for the valid 

 location of a mining claim by recording notice of location 

 in the county recorder's office, staking and developing the 

 claim and posting notice of location on the claim, it was 

 immaterial as against subsequent locators that the only 

 valid notice of location was posted after the notice was 

 recorded. Green v. Gavin. Court of Appeal, Third Dis- 

 trict, California. 105 Pacific 761. 



SALE OF WATER DAMAGES. 



In a suit involving damages for failure of a vendor 

 to furnish a certain number of inches of "bought water" 

 to be furnished by a ditch company, no other measure 

 of damages was competent than the value of the water, 

 in the absence of evidence that no such water was obtain- 

 able, and a decree for the supposed diminution in value 

 of the land, on the basis of the price paid per acre, was 

 erroneous. Starbird v. Jacobs. Supreme Court of Colo- 

 rado. 105 Pacific 872. 



PRIOR RIPARIAN OWNERSHIP. 



The owner of l l /> acres of land upon which springs 

 arose forming a pond, the waters of which flowed across 

 the property of another, had a right to permit his stock, 

 consisting of as many as 6 cows and 6 or 7 horses, and his 

 geese, to the number of about 20, to drink from the pond 

 and to go into it, though a pollution of the water re- 

 sulted: such use not being unreasonable. McEvoy v. 

 Taylor. Supreme Court of Washington. 105 Pacific 851 



RECORDING NOTICE. 



The recorded notice of a mining claim need only be 

 similar to that posted upon the ground and show that 

 claimant claims that the land described and identified 

 therein, so that, where the notice recorded was a copy 

 of a posted notice which was insufficient because not 

 posted within the claim, that the valid notice subsequently 

 posted, which differed from the first notice only in omit- 

 ting the name of a witness, was not again recorded, was 

 immaterial as against subsequent claimants. Green v. 

 Gavin. Court of Appeal, Third District, California. 105 

 Pacific 761. 



DETACHING LAND. 



Where the owner of land proceeds in equity to have 

 the same detached from an irrigation district, in order 

 to defeat the jurisdiction of the county board it must be 

 clearly shown, and in like manner found by the court, 

 that the land embraced within the district is in fact such 

 that, from some natural cause, it is nonirrigable, or is 

 expressly exempted by statute from the operation of the 

 law providing for the organization of irrigation districts, 

 and the taxing of lands within the boundary of such dis- 

 trict for irrigation purposes. Sowerivme v. Central Irr. 

 Dist. Supreme Court of Nebraska. 124 Northwestern 

 118. 



CHANGE OF POINT OF DIVERSION. 



Where the property of a decreed appropriator of 

 water of a- stream abutted on both sides of the stream, 

 and the headgate and main ditch were on the north side, 

 the building of a flume from the south side across the 

 stream and connecting it with the main ditch at a point 

 below the headgate did not amount to a change of point 

 of diversion, requiring compliance with the statutory pro- 

 visions, since the flume was a mere lateral ditch. Dies 

 v. Hartbauer. Supreme Court of Colorado. 105 Pacific 

 868. 



DUTY TO BRIDGE DITCHES. 



Under the provisions of section 3310, Rev. Codes, it 

 is the duty of the county to construct bridges that are re- 

 quired to complete all roads intersecting ditches or canals 

 laid out after the construction of such ditches or canals; 

 but, when ditches or canals are constructed across an ex- 

 isting road or highway, one established by prescription 

 or duly located by the county commissioners, then it is 

 the duty of the owner to construct a proper bridge across 

 such ditch or canal. MacCammelly, Road Overseer, v. 

 Pioneer Irr. Dist. Supreme Court of Idaho. 105 Pacific 

 1076. 



RECEIVERSHIP OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 



Where a plaintiff alleges that it has acquired an in- 

 terest in an irrigation system by the purchase of water 

 rights therein, and the irrigation company owning such 

 system becomes insolvent and is unable to protect and care 

 for its property and comply with its contracts with the 

 plaintiff to furnish water, the district court or the judge 

 thereof has power and jurisdiction to appoint a receiver 

 for such irrigation company to preserve and care for and 

 operate its property pending the litigation as to the plain- 

 tiff's interest in said property. Idaho Fruit Land Co., Ltd., 

 v. Great Western Beet Sugar Co. Supreme Court of Idaho. 

 105 Pacific 562. 



POLLUTION OF STREAM. 



Where a mill owner who had acquired the right to 

 use waters artificially developed in working mines used 

 it for milling purposes in concentrating ores, and after 

 it had become impregnated with poisonous substances 

 discharged it into the channel of a natural stream, to the 

 injury of a land owner who had appropriated waters from 

 the stream for irrigation long before any rights of the 

 mill owner, attached, the mill owner was responsible in 

 damages for injury to the land owner from the pollution 

 of the stream. Humphreys Tunnel & Mining Co. v. Frank. 

 Supreme Court of Colorado. 105 Pacific 1093. 



