WATER RIGHTS ON LOS ANGELES RIVER. 339 



The findings of the court, as above quoted, seem to support the citj''s contention 

 in everj^ respect. It is, therefore, most surprising to read that judgment was given 

 for the plaintiffs. It was to the effect that, being riparian owners, the plaintiffs 

 were entitled to divert a reasonable amount of water from the river for irrigation 

 and domestic use. The decree perpetually enjoined the citv from interfering with 

 the ditches or with the plaintiffs' use, upon their said land, of a reasonable quantity 

 of the river water for irrigation and domestic purposes. This decision of the lower 

 court can only be regarded as evidence of the peculiar sanctitj' with which riparian 

 rights are clothed in nearly all courts. Here almost every ascertained fact was 

 against the applicability of the English common law : nevertheless judgment was 

 rendered in favor of perpetuating that doctrine in a region where its use is an 

 absurdity. 



The city appealed. In its decision the supreme court quotes at length from the 

 findings of the lower court, noting the facts that for a centurj' the city claimed all 

 the w:aters of the river, and that "such claim had been recognized by all persons 

 interested, from the head of the stream and along its banks, including the plaintiffs." 

 The decision of the lower court is reversed and judgment ordered for defendant upon 

 the findings. 



The supreme court says that it did not examine the rights of the city "under 

 the Spanish and Mexican laws applicable to pueblos, for the findings in the case ren- 

 der such examination unnecessary," but it goes on record touching one branch of the 

 city's asserted right as follows: 



We do not intend to he understood as holding, nor do we hold, that the city has the right at 

 any time to dispose of the water for use upon lands situated without the limits, to the injury of the 

 plaintiffs or other owners of land bordering on the river. On the contrary, we are of the_opinion that 

 the city has not that right. But as already observed, the findings in this case show that at the time 

 of the acts complained of there was not sufficient water in the river for the needs of the inhabitants 

 of the city; and we hold that, to the extent of the needs of the inhabitants, it has the paramount right 

 to the use of the waters of the river, and the further right, long exercised and recognized, as appears 

 from the findings, to manage and control the said waters for those purposes. 



ELMS V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES. 



The case of Henry Elms et al. v. The City of Los Angeles, reported in 58 Cal. , 

 80, was another case involving the city's pueblo right. The facts and the arguments 

 were the same as in the preceding case, and the judgment of the lower court in favor 

 of the plaintiff was likewise reversed bj- the supreme court on appeal. 



VERNON IRRIGATION COBIPANY v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES. 



The pueblo right claimed by the city is once more the principal issue in the case 

 of The Vernon Irrigation Company v. The City of Los Angeles etal., decided by the 

 supreme court in March, 1895, and reported in 106 Cal., 237. The plaintiff corpora- 

 tion, the owner of lands riparian to Los Angeles River, alleges that it is entitled to 

 have the waters of the river flow in their accustomed place, and sues for an injunction 

 to prevent the city from diverting them. The plaintiff further alleges that the city 

 has no right to the river waters except "the right to divert and use a certain- 

 quantit}', which it has been using, for municipal purposes and distributing to its 

 inhabitants, which does not exceed 300 inches;" that the city threatens to enlarge its 

 ditches so as to divert the entire flow of the liver for the purpose of selling the same 



