THE I K R I G A T I N AGE. 



377 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



WASTE 



One is entitled to use water only in such quantities and 

 at such times as may be reasonably necessary for some useful 

 purpose, either existing or fairly contemplated in the future, 

 and cannot waste water even for a useful purpose. Contrail 

 \: Sterling Mining Co., Supreme Court of Oregon, 122 Pa- 

 cific 42. 

 ACTS CONSTITUTING APPROPRIATION 



A party, to acquire under the statute a right to the use 

 of unappropriated waters for irrigation, must take, divert, 

 and use the waters ; and the making of a survey and the 

 posting of a notice of appropriation confer no rights. Coray 

 v. Holbrook, Supreme Court of Utah, 121 Pacific 572. 

 ABANDONMENT 



Where an appropriator of water of a stream, pursuant to 

 a notice of appropriation of a specified quantity, and his suc- 

 cessors for 30 years failed to make any beneficial use of the 

 waters, they lost any right by virtue of the appropriation and 

 the waters became subject to appropriation by others. Hitf- 

 ford v. Dye, Supreme Court of California, 121 Pacific 400. 

 ESTABLISHING PRIORITY 



Where statutes authorizing the adjudication of water 

 rights, for purposes other than irrigation, did not become 

 effective until after the date of a decree settling a priority in 

 a stream for "domestic, household, stock, and other beneficial 

 purposes," the decree is improper, as without authority. 

 Dollv.McEllen, Court of Appeals of Colorado, 121 Pacific 149. 

 RIGHT TO SUE 



Where a plaintiff sued to quiet title in a water right, a 

 defendant, who, as the owner of the opposing right, had 

 leased it to other defendants, was entitled to bring a counter- 

 claim for a diversion of the water by the plaintiff, as such 

 diversion might ripen into a title by adverse use, and thus 

 injure the reversion. Custer Consul. Mines Co. v. City of 

 Helena, Supreme Court of Montana, 122 Pacific 567. 

 PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT 



Where defendant granted plaintiff the right to -construct 

 and maintain a flume over his land to carry water to irrigate 

 plaintiff's land, and plaintiff constructed a flume and main- 

 tained it for many years, the right of maintaining it must be 

 regarded as absolute and is capable of ripening into a pre- 

 scriptive title. Gustin v. Harting, Supreme Court of Wyom- 

 ing, 121 Pacific 522. 

 CLASSIFICATION OP MATERIAL 



Where plaintiff contracted to construct an irrigation ditch, 

 the contract providing different prices for different kinds of 

 excavation, but no one was empowered by the contract to 

 make a final classification, and a dispute arose as to whether 

 a portion of the excavation was properly classified, the ques- 

 tion was one of fact, and not of law. -Cook v. Green River 

 Mat. Irr. Co., Supreme Court of Utah, 121 Pacific 970. 

 IRRIGATION CONTRACT 



A provision of a contract between a construction com- 

 pany and the state that the construction company will sell 

 to persons filing on lands not described therein, but sus- 

 ceptible of irrigation, a water right or share in the irrigation 

 canal for every acre filed upon, is a specific promise to sell 

 water for state lands included in the irrigation project. 

 State v. Twin Falls Canal Co., Supreme Court of Idaho, 121 

 Pacific 1039. 

 Boxes OF IRRIGATION DISTRICT 



Where an irrigation district organized under the laws 

 of a state and expressly authorized to issue bonds, sell the 

 same to the highest bidder after advertisement, and to use 

 the proceeds for the construction of irrigation works, issued 

 bonds which it had voted at par directly to a contractor in 

 payment for work which he had performed, its action was at 

 most no more than an irregular exercise of its power, and, 

 where neither the district nor any taxpayer questioned the 

 validity of the bonds until eight years after their issuance 

 and after the right of the contractor to maintain an action 

 at law to recover for his work was barred by limitation, a 

 subsequent purchaser of property in the district cannot then 

 maintain a suit to have them declared void because of such 

 irregularity. Rodgers v. Thomas, U. S. Circuit Court of Ap- 

 peals, 193 Fed. 952. 



39 



For this large 



270-GaIlon 



pump. 



Other sizes in 

 porportion. 



Without 



comparison the biggest 



pump value ever offered the 



"BUFFALO" CLASS M SIDE- 

 SUCTION CENTRIFUGAL 



For general drainage and irrigation 

 purposes not exceeding 50 feet total head 

 the Buffalo Class M Centrifugal Pumps 

 represent the highest manufacturing 

 achievement in producing, at a popular 

 price, a pump of astonishing quality low 

 power consumption, smooth operation, 

 extraordinary strength and freedom from 

 repairs. 



The large pulley is supported on either 

 side by extra long bearings furnished with 

 brass grease cups. The bearings are lined 

 with genuine white babbitt metal only. 

 To insure operation without attention, a 

 very long packing gland is provided on 

 the shaft. Companion flanges, both for 

 suction and discharge opening, are fur- 

 nished without extra charge. All parts 

 of these pumps, being accurately made, 

 are interchangeable and can be promptly 

 duplicated at any time. 



Our class M pumps are also furnished in verti- 

 cal suction type and for submerged service. Ask 

 for our catalog. Tight and loose pulleys, foot 

 valves, flap valves, primers and other accessories 

 can be furnished at a small extra cost. 



The prices are f. o. b. works for iron pumps. 

 Brass or brass fitted pumps also furnished. 



Ask for Catalog No. 237 -C 



BUFFALO STEAM PUMP CO. 



BUFFALO, N.Y. 



Agents Wanted for our complete line of pumps for 

 every purpose. 



When writing to advertisers please mention The Irrigation Age. 



