154 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



ABANDONMENT OF WATER RIGHT. 



That a water right reserved in the conveyance of a rail- 

 way right of way has not been used for several years does not 

 show that it has been extinguished or abandoned. 



Norfolk & W. Ry Co. v. Obenshain. Supreme Court of 

 Appeals of Virginia, 59 Southeastern 604. 



DEFENSE TO CHANGE IN POINT OF DIVERSION. 



In a proceeding to change the point of diversion of water 



from an irrigation ditch, it is no defense that consumers in 



another district, who are not parties to the proceeding, would 



be injured by the change. 



Lower Latham Ditch Co. v. Bijou Irrigation Co. Supreme 



Court of Colorado, 93 Pacific 483. 



IRRIGATION LINES. 



Where plaintiff's grantors entered upon land under an 

 invalid deed, and maintained a water course over a part 

 thereof openly, continuously, and with defendant's knowledge 

 for more than five years, the burden is on defendant, in order 

 to establish her exclusive title thereto, to show that plaintiffs 

 ustr was by permission, or otherwise explain it. 



Knight v. Cohen. Court of Appeal, 2d Dist. California, 

 93 Pacific 396. 



CHANGE IN PLACE OF DIVERSION. 



Sess. Laws 1899, p. 235, c. 105, relating to irrigation, pro- 

 vides for changes of the point of diversion where an adjudica- 

 tion of relative priorities has been had under the statutes en- 

 acted for that purpose, but does not contemplate the determi- 

 nation of the question of abandonment, and the presumption 

 is that such rights continue in existence until a court of com- 

 petent jurisdiction in an appropriate proceeeding has other- 

 wise determined. 



Lower Latham Ditch Co. v. Bijou Irrigation Co. Supreme 

 Court of Colorado, 93 Pacific 483. 



RIGHTS OF USERS OF WATER. 



Where a water company, bound to supply water to land 

 as an easement appurtenant thereto, sought to transfer its 

 system, subject to the rights of the owners of the land as con- 

 sumers and users of the water, and the transferee sought to 

 purchase, subject to the rights of the owners which it would 

 protect, an owner of such land could not maintain a suit to 

 restrain the transfer on the ground that by it he would be 

 deprived of his rights. 



Graham v. Pasadena Land & Water Co. Supreme Court 

 of California, 93 Pacific 498. 



RESERVATION OF IRRIGATION RIGHTS IN CESSION TO THE UNITED 

 STATES. 



The reservation of the waters of Milk river for irrigation 

 purposes, implied in favor of the Indians on the Fort Belknap 

 reservation from the agreement of May 1, 1888, in which the 

 Indians ceded to the United States all their lands except a 

 small tract set apart as such reservation, was not repealed 

 by the admission of Montana into the Union by the act of 

 February 22, 1889, on an equal footing with the original states. 



Henry winters et al. v. United States. Supreme Court of 

 the United States, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207. 



PERFORMANCE OF IRRIGATION CONTRACT. 



Under a contract whereby defendant was to furnish suffi- 

 cient water for plaintiff's rice crop, but exempting him from 

 liability should there be insufficient water, provided a reason- 

 able effort was made to procure the same, and providing that 

 defendant should be the judge of the water conditions neces- 

 sary for the crop, if defendant used his best judgment as to 

 the amount of water to be supplied, he was not liable for a 

 breach, though his judgment may have been at fault. 



Kelly v. Corrington. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 

 105 Southwestern 1155. 



WATER RIGHTS. 



A corporation owning a water supply for land conveyed 

 the land to a purchaser, and subsequently transferred the sup- 

 ply with its water system to a third person. The by-laws of 

 the corporation provided that the water should be supplied to 

 the land to be used thereon. Held, that the right to receive 

 water for the land was an easement appurtenant thereto with- 

 in Civ. Code, Sees. 552, 801, defining the rights of purchasers 

 to use water for irrigation, etc. 



Graham v. Pasadena Land & Water Co. Supreme Court 

 of California, 93 Pacific 498. 







CONSTRUCTION OF IRRIGATION CONTRACT. 



Under an agreement by which defendant sold to plaintiffs 

 a perpetual right to use a certain amount of water from de- 

 fendant's irrigation system, and plaintiffs were to have the 

 right to raise such part of the amount of water conveyed by 

 pump or otherwise as they might desire for the purpose of 

 irrigating part of their land lying above the grade of de- 

 fendant's main canal, plaintiffs were not entitled to water 

 from the ditch of another company in which defendant was a 

 stockholder for the purpose of irrigating that part of their 

 land. 



Lanham v. Wenatchee Canal Co. Supreme Court of 

 Washington, 93 Pacific 522. 



PRIORITY FOR DIRECT IRRIGATION. 



A priority to the use of water is a property right, which 

 is the subject of purchase and sale, and in its character and 

 method of use may be changed, provided such change does not 

 injuriously affect the rights of others. The owner of a prior- 

 ity for direct irrigation is entitled to store, during the direct 

 irrigation season, the quantity of water, measured by volume 

 and time, which it would be entitled to divert during that 

 period for the purpose of direct irrigation, and to use the 

 same later in the same season for irrigating crops requiring 

 irrigation at that time, when the direct supply would be in- 

 sufficient. 



Seven Lakes Reservoir Co. v. New Lovcland & Greeley 

 Irrigation & Land Co. Supreme Court of Colorado, 93 Pa- 

 cific 485. 



MICHIGAN STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE. 



Department of Horticulture and Landscape Gardening. 



Agricultural College P. O., Mich.. January 25, 1908. 



Bostrom-Brady Mfg. Co., Atlanta, Ga. 

 GENTLEMEN : 



In reply to your letter requesting a testimonial for your 

 level, I would say that the instrument has appealed to us as 

 a very practical, useful and especially simple one for level 

 work. We find it very handy in our landscape work here, 

 as it is so light and easy to set up. We use it considerably 

 more than some of the more complex instruments. 



To the general farmer, to the landscape worker and to 

 others wishing a simple, Jight and accurate level, we feel 

 justified in stating that the Bostrom Improved Level is the 

 best we have seen of its class. 



Later we hope to be out again in the field, and if you 

 wish we could send you a photograph of our boys using 

 the instrument in landscape work. 



Thanking you for past favors, we remain, 

 Very truly yours, 



G. P. HALLIGAN, 



Instructor. 



Send $2,50 for The Irrigation 



Age one year and 

 The Primer of Irrigation 



