THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



213 



mere erection of the water plant which would invade plain- 

 tiffs' rights and call for protest from plaintiffs ; such invasion 

 being committed only by the pumping of an excessive amount 

 of water, and since after the commencement of the pumping 

 plaintiffs had done nothing to induce defendant to believe 

 plaintiffs assented to defendant's act. Verdugo Canyon Water 

 Co. v. Verdugo. Supreme Court of California. 93 Pacific 

 1021. 



CONTRACT FOR SALE OF WATER. 



An agreement of a water company with the owner of land 

 to furnish through its canal from a certain river to the land- 

 owner, his heirs or assigns, to irrigate the land, a flow of 

 water sufficient to irrigate it each year for a certain number 

 of years, the devices through which the water shall be drawn 

 from the land to be constructed by the company and the land- 

 owner to pay a certain amount yearly therefor, the contract 

 to have the force and effect of a covenant running to and with 

 the land and the canal, is not a mere personal covenant of 

 the company, but, while not a lien on the canal, is an agree- 

 ment for sale of real property of the company, binding on the 

 successor in title of the company's plant, taking with notice of 

 the agreement. Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman. Supreme 

 Court of California. 93 Pacific 858. 



IRRIGATION RIGHT TO SUPPLY. 



Defendant, an irrigation company, agreed to furnish a 

 land company or its assigns water for its land on condition 

 that a rental to be fixed by defendant was paid annually in 

 advance, and in case of failure for two successive years to 

 pay the rental its right to water should end and the contract 

 be forfeited. The payments were allowed to lapse for several 

 years, and then a grantee of the land company gave a note 

 for the arrearages, and water was furnished him. Later plain- 

 tiffs became owners, and made an agreement whereby they 

 were to receive water by paying the rental in advance, but 

 such agreement was not to prejudice defendants in their rights 

 in regard to the unpaid notes for water rents. Held, that 

 defendant waived the right to enforce the forfeiture. Kimball 

 v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co. Supreme Court of Colo- 

 rado. 94 Pacific 333. 



WATER RIGHTS WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS. 



The district court having had jurisdiction of the subject- 

 matter of a suit to award priorities in the appropriation of 

 waters from a stream, a defendant therein is estopped to 

 assert for the first time in a suit brought nine years later that 

 the court in the first suit was without jurisdiction on the 

 ground that the adjudication should, under the statutes, have 

 covered all the priorities in the district, and not merely priori- 

 ties for water from such stream, where defendant voluntarily 

 submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court in the first 

 suit, and fully participated in the proceedings, excepted to the 

 findings and decree proposed by the referee, appealed from a 

 judgment approving such decree.which judgment was affirmed, 

 and received water according to the award. Kerr v. Burns. 

 Supreme Court of Colorado. 93 Pacific 1120. 



"IRRIGATING SEASON." 



Under a contract entered into between an irrigation com- 

 pany and a water consumer providing that the consumer shall 

 pay certain water rents per acre annually for the use of water 

 to irrigate his land, and containing a clause that "water shall 

 be delivered free of all charges during the first irrigating 

 season that water is delivered to said purchaser," held, that 

 the words "irrigating season" signify and are equivalent to 

 the entire irrigating period embraced in one year's time, and 

 that it was the intention of the contracting parties to thereby 

 exempt the consumer from payment of water rents for the 

 period of one year, and that the settler is entitled to receive 

 the free use of the water during the irrigating period for one 

 year from the date on which water was delivered to him, 

 and that at the expiration of one year his pay period will 

 begin. Twin Falls Land & Water Co v. Lind. Supreme 

 Court of Idaho. 94 Pacific 164. 



WHAT THE NAME "ELKHART" SIGNIFIES TO VE- 

 HICLE AND HARNESS BUYERS. 



The man who cannot pick out a buggy or other 

 vehicle to his liking from the great catalog of the 

 Elkhart Carriage and Harness Manufacturing Com- 

 pany of Elkhart, Ind., is a hard man to please. 



Their 1908 book is an eye opener a handsome 

 book of over 250 pages, every one of which contains a 

 fine illustration and accurate description of some of 

 their numberless styles of sterling vehicles and harness. 

 You will find in it about every kind of rig you ever 

 saw. The same is true of harness. The pictures are 

 so large and the description so full that you will know 

 very nearly as much about the purchase you are about 

 to make as if you actually saw it. 



But the wonder comes when you look at the prices. 

 Anyone who is not acquainted with "the Elkhart 

 Way" m.ust be amazed at the bargains. He cannot 

 understand how high grade vehicles and harness can 

 be made and sold for so little money. 



But the Elkhart people have been doing business 

 this way for 35 years. Making and selling direct to the 

 people is an old story with them. That's the secret 

 of it all. They build and they sell direct to the user. 

 N"o jobber, no dealer, no agent, no traveling expense, 

 no commissions, no storage. If you say such prices 

 are impossible, the answer is, they have been making 

 them for over a third of a century. 



The Elkhart Carriage and Harness Manufactur- 

 ing Company is the kind of institution we like to rec- 

 ommend to our readers. A great big concern, thor- 

 oughly reliable and dealing in high class good?. We 

 can say unhesitatingly that anyone who has need for a 

 vehicle or harness should send for the great catalog, 

 see the prices and then judge for themselves. 



TRY THE COLUMNS OF THE IRRIGATION AGE. 

 IT WILL PAY YOU. 



Send $2.50 for The Irrigation Age 

 1 year. a.nd the Primer of Irrigation 



As an illustration of what THE IRRIGATION AGE 

 is doing for our advertisers we are reproducing here- 

 with a letter recently received from Mr. C. D. Butchart, 

 a prominent manufacturer of Denver, Colo. This 

 is in line with many other communications recently 

 received whiqh indicate that advertising in the columns 

 of THE IRRIGATION AGE is paying well, and we are 

 anxious to emphasize this fact in the hope that other 

 advertisers who are not at present patrons of our 

 columns may be induced to place business with us. 



DENVER, COLO., April 28, 1908. 

 THE IRRIGATION AGE COMPANY, 



112 Dearborn Street, Chicago. 



Gentlemen: Your letter of April 25th enclosing copy of 

 inquiry regarding sluice gates is received, and I thank you for 

 your courtesy in the matter. 



It would appear that I should have renewed my adver- 

 tising in your publication some time ago, as I intended. That 

 IRRIGATION AGE has not carried an advertisement of mine this 

 season is emphatically not because your paper was not a 

 profitable medium. Quite the contrary; in fact, as a number 

 of the large orders completed this spring are directly traceable 

 to previous advertising with you. You may expect to hear 

 from me just as soon as my new catalogue is issued. 



Yours truly. 



C. D. BUTCHART. 



