WATEK RIGHTS OS LOS ANGELES RIVER. 337 



pueblo and of the city." Also that surplus waters were being sold by the city to 

 consumers outside the city. 



Upon appeal b}' the city the supreme court decided: 



(1) The claim set up by the city in this action — that the city is the owner of the corpus of the 

 water in the Los Angeles Kiver — finds no support in the evidence. 



(2) Nor does the fact that the city is a lower riparian proprietor entitle her to judgment in her 

 favor. The defendants are upper riparian proprietors on the same stream. In the former action 

 between these parties it was adjudged that the diversion of the water by the defendants to the extent 

 and in the manner in which they then diverted it was such as, Imng riparian proprietors, they might 

 lawfully make. The conditions do not appear to be different now from what they then were. The 

 diversion by the defendants is the same now as then, and while these conditions continue unchanged 

 the judgment rendered in the former action operates as a bar between the parties here. 



LOS ANGELES WATER COMPANY v. LOS ANGELES CITY. 



The case of Los Angeles Water Company v. Los Angeles City was decided by 

 the supreme court in April, 1880. It was reported in 55 Cal., 176. The city owned 

 the Los Angeles waterworks, which it lea.sed to the water company "for the .sale 

 or delivery of water to the inhabitants of said city for domestic purposes." One of 

 the expressed conditions of the contract was to the effect that the water company 

 should not dispose of any water for irrigation purposes, but should take from the 

 river only such an amount as was necessary for domestic purposes. The city took 

 water from the water compan}''s pipes without its consent, and after a time the 

 companj' sued to recover $2,50(», the value of the water so taken. 



The fact was established that at all times when water was taken from the 

 company's pipes for street .sprinkling the pipes contained more of the water of Los 

 Angeles River than was required by the inhabitants of the city for domestit purposes. 

 Judgment was rendered for the city. Upon appeal by the plaintiff, the supreme 

 court held that under the contract between the parties the water compan}- was not 

 entitled to collect payment for water other than that furnished to the inhabitants of 

 the city for domestic purposes; that the companj' had no right to the surplus, and 

 that "water taken for the purpose of sprinkling the streets was water for irrigation 

 within the primary definition of that word." 



FELIZ V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES. 



The pueblo right was again put upon trial in the case of Anastacio Feliz et al. 

 V. The City of Los Angeles, decided by the supreme court in April, 1881, and 

 reported in 58 Cal., 73. Plaintiffs claimed by riparian right and many years' 

 continuous use, as did Baldwin in the original case noted above, but in this instance 

 the citj' urged its peculiar and exclusive right to better effect and made out a much 

 stronger case than in the earlier suit involving the same question. Inasmuch as the 

 findings of the lower court are very comprehensive and contain the statement of 

 facts necessary to an understanding of the decision, the following abstract is made 

 therefrom: 



(1) That in the year 1781, pursuant to the laws of Spain and the rules and regulations providing for 

 the government of California, Los .\ngeles was duly formed into a pueblo, and became entitled to all 

 the rights of a pueblo according to said laws, rules, and regulations, and all its rights as such pueblo 

 since then were duly recognized and allowed by the Spanish and Mexican Governments during their 

 respective occupation and control of the same, and also by the respective provincial and departmental 

 authorities of California. 



23850— No. 100—01 22 



