78 



THE IKRIGATION AGE. 



Supreme Court Decisions 



Irrigation Cases 



FAILURE TO SUPPLY WATER. 



Where a party entitled to be supplied with water 

 by an irrigation company made due effort to require 

 the company to furnish water, and tendered the full 

 legal water rate, he was not, as a matter of law, re- 

 quired, as a condition precedent to recovering more 

 than nominal damages for not being supplied with 

 water, to tender an additional amount demanded by 

 the company and sign a contract, which he feared 

 would estop him from subsequently asserting his 

 rights ; but the reasonableness of such demand was 

 for the jury. Xorthcrn Colorado Irr. Co. v. Ponppirt. 

 Court of Appeals of Colorado. 127 Pacific 125. 

 RIGHT TO RESCIND PURCHASE OF LAND. 



One is not entitled to rescind executory contracts 

 for the purchase of land on the ground of misrepre- 

 sentation that there was an inexhaustible supply of 

 water to irrigate the lands, where he did not act 

 promptly after becoming aware of the actual condi- 

 tions. Angel v. Columbia Canal Co. Supreme Court 

 of Washington. 12? Pacific 766. 

 ADVERSE POSSESSION. 



Plaintiffs are entitled to use one-half of the water 

 of a stream for irrigation, as against defendant, where 

 plaintiff's predecessor had an agreement with defend- 

 ant's predecessor for such use, and continually used 

 it for 19 years as appurtenant to the land, under 

 claim of right. Allen v. Roscbcr^. Supreme Court of 

 \Vashington. 126 Pacific 900. 

 STATUTORY APPROPRIATIONS. 



The waters of the Pecos river are public prop- 

 erty, subject to the easement right of riparian owners 

 to use such water as is reasonably sufficient for do- 

 mestic and stock raising purposes and for irrigating 

 the riparian lands, and a statutory appropriation of 

 the water in excess of the riparian owners' needs is 

 effective. Biggs v. Lcc. Court of Civil Appeals of 

 Texas. 147 Southwestern 709. 

 RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES. 



Act June 15, 1880. c. 223, 3, 21 Stat. 203, pro- 

 viding for allotment in severally of lands of the Ute 

 Indian Reservation in Colorado, further provides that 

 "all lands not so allotted shall be held and deemed to 

 be public lands of the United States and subject to 

 disposal under the laws providing for the disposal of 

 the public lands at the same price and on the same 

 terms as other lands of like character, pro- 



vided that * said lands shall be 



subject to cash entry only in accordance with existing 

 law." Held, that it was competent for Congress to 

 change the manner of disposition of such lands in so 

 far as third parties were concerned, and that persons 

 taking preemptions thereon after the passage of Act 

 Aug. 3, 1890, c. 837, 1, 26 Stat. 391 (U. S. Comp. 

 St. 1901, p. 1570), reserving from all public lands 

 thereafter taken up right for ditches and canals con- 

 structed by authority of the United States, took sub- 

 ject to such provision. United States v. J'an Horn. 

 U. S. District Court, District of Colorado. 197 Fed- 

 eral 611. 



CHANGE IN POINT OK DIVERSION. 



Where F. & F. appropriated 480 inches of water 

 of a certain creek and diverted the same from the 

 creek in 1872, and applied the same to their lands, 

 and thereafter in 1876 constructed another ditch lower 

 down the creek for the purpose of diverting a part 

 of their appropriation from said creek, and did so di- 

 \ ert after 1876, and thereafter in 1879 H. made an 

 appropriation of water from said creek, and diverted 

 it below E. & E.'s 1876 diversion, and thereafter E. 

 & E. sold their land and water rights to other persons, 

 among them B., and B. thereafter conducted about 

 half of the water awarded to him through said ditch 

 of 1876 and about half through a ditch constructed in 

 1886, and thereafter in 1899 an action was brought to 

 determine the priorities and amounts of said and other 

 users of water from said creek, and the priorities and 

 amounts were determined by the decree in said action. 

 I>. being given a priority as of 1872 for 238 inches. 

 and H. a priority as of 1879 for 150 inches, and B. 

 continued to divert about one-half of said 238 inches 

 through his 1876 ditch, held, that H. is not entitled to 

 an injunction restraining B. from so diverting his 

 water. Hall v. Blackman. Supreme Court of Idaho. 

 126 Pacific 1045. 

 INDEFINITENESS O'F CONTRACT. 



Plaintiff sued to recover money under a contract 

 by which it was claimed that defendant agreed to 

 purchase a water right on certain specified terms 

 The written contract indicated that defendant intended 

 to purchase a water right to lj/z feet per acre per 

 year to irrigate 10 acres of land, when the water 

 rights purchased embraced 500 acres. The contract, 

 however, provided that the water should be used to 

 irrigate land specifically described aggregating 2,50U 

 acres pro rata. It also recited that it was essential 

 that the works be completed by April 1, 1910, so that 

 the water might be then used for irrigation, and that 

 defendant and those uniting with him agreed to pur- 

 chase, upon completion of the works, the number of 

 acre water rights set opposite their respective names 

 to irrigate the "2.500 acres of land described in th'. 1 

 contract pro rata." It also provided that the water 

 rights which defendant agreed to purchase should be 

 in all essential respects the same as those in a blank- 

 contract attached, but the two papers were irreconcil- 

 able. Held, that the contract was so indefinite and 

 uncertain as to be unenforceable. Pasco Reclamation 

 Co. \. Cox. Supreme Court of Washington. 127 

 Pacific 107. 

 APPROPRIATION. 



In order to initiate the right to appropriate pub- 

 lic waters of the state at a point upon land belonging 

 to the state, it is necessary for the applicant to enter 

 upon land owned by the state of Idaho for the purpose 

 of making the necessary examination and surveys. 

 maps, and plans required in order to make a proper 

 application to the state engineer for a permit, and the 

 entering upon the state lands for the purpose of mak- 

 ing appropriation without having the right to make 

 such entry, either by purchase or condemnation pro- 

 ceedings, as provided by law, would be a trespass upon 

 said lands, under the provisions of section 1578, Rev. 

 Codes. Tobcv v. Bridgetcood. Supreme Court of 

 Idaho. 127 Pacific 178.' 



