THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



179 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



NONUSER OF WATER RIGHTS. 



Mere nonuser of a water right does not show abandon- 

 ment thereof. Facts and circumstances showing an intention 

 to abandon must appear. 



In re Daly, Commissioner. Supreme Court of New York, 

 Appellate Division, 108 N. Y. Supp. 635. 



DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS IN WATER COMPANY. 



A stockholder of a quasi public corporation, engaged in 

 supplying water i'or public use, is bound by the action of the 

 holders of two-thirds of the stock and the directors consent- 

 ing to a transfer of the property, franchise, and business of 

 the corporation. 



Graham v. Pasadena Land & Water Co. Supreme Court 

 of California, 93 Pacific 498. 



REVOKING LICENSE TO TAKE WATER. 



The fact that plaintiffs were permitted to take water from 

 the ditch owned by the other company until they could ar- 

 range to pump water i'rom defendant's canal would not pre- 

 vent defendant from revoking the permission . which was 



ACTION TO ESTABLISH WATER RIGHTS JUDGMENT. 



Where one only claimed a right to use 20 inches of water 

 of a stream for domestic purposes and to irrigate his land, 

 a judgment awarding him that amount, but not showing the 

 purpose for which it might be used, did not entitle him nor 

 his successor to transport water beyond the watershed for 

 other uses. 



Pomona Land & Water Co. v. San Antonio Water Co. 

 Supreme Court of California, 93 Pacific 881. 



IRRIGATION STATUTE REMEDIAL. 



Sess. Laws 1899, p. 235, c. 105, providing for a change ol' 

 the point of diversion of water from an irrigation ditch, is 

 purely remedial, and one of its objects is to prevent a multi- 

 plicity of suits, and not to allow a change to be made until 

 all persons who might be affected thereby are notified and 

 given an opportunity to be heard. 



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

 Court of Colorado, 93 Pacific 483. 



ACQUISITION OF WATER RIGHTS BY PRESCRIPTION. 



Where plaintiff and defendant water companies agreed 

 upon a division of the natural flow of a stream at a dam, 

 subject to the right ot' another to use 20 inches for a specific 

 purpose, and defendant acquired such right, though it did 

 not have a right to use water thereunder for another purpose, 

 where for a long time it openly, notoriously and under a 



Hifnting Is Fine Sport in the Flathead Country On Line of Great 

 Northern Railway. 



granted as a mere accommodation, even if it amounted to a 

 parlor license. 



Lanham v. Wenatchee Canal Co. Supreme Court of 

 Washington, 93 Pacific 522. 



DIVERSION OF WATER -JURISDICTION OF COURT. 



Unless Sess. Laws 1899, p. 235, c. 105, providing for a 

 change of the point of diversion of water from an irrigation 

 ditch, the district court has jurisdiction to render a decree 

 permitting a change in the point of diversion I'rom one water 

 district to another. 



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

 Court of Colorado, 93 Pacific 483. 



RIGHT TO CHANGE POINT OF DIVERSION. 



The right to change the point of diversion or place of 

 use water, which has been obtained as the result of .an 

 appropriation, is one of the incidents of ownership, independ- 

 ent of statute, and the only limitation upon it is that the 

 rights of others be not infringed. 



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

 Court of Colorado, 93 Pacific 483. 



claim of right diverted the water for another purpose to a 

 point near the dam and did not allow it to flow over it for 

 division, it acquired a prescriptive title to the quantity used. 

 Pomona Land & Water Co. v. San Antonio Water Co. 

 Supreme Court of California, 93 Pacific 881. 



RECORD OF WATER CONTRACT. 



A contract by which a water company agrees to furnish 

 through its canal to the owner of certain land, water to irri- 

 gate it, for a term of years, he to make certain yearly pay- 

 ments therefor, is not to be recorded in the book in which 

 County Government Act, 120, subd. 1 (St. 1897, p. 484, c. 

 277) provides that "deeds, grants, transfers and mortgages" 

 of real estate shall be recorded ; but the book provided by 

 subdivision 12 for recording "such other writings as are re- 

 quired or permitted by law to be recorded," and in which it 

 has been the custom to record water contracts and other agree- 

 ments of like character, is the proper book in which to record 

 it, so as to give constructive notice thereof. 



Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman. Supreme Court of 

 California, 93 Pacific 858. 



