66 
being unaffected thereby on account of tin- abundance of water in the 
river and the small amount withdrawn by the older priorities, allowed 
nearly the full four years within which an appeal from the decree 
could be made to lapse. The decree was granted May 28, l s ^». and 
not until the fall of L886 did the water commissioner find it necessary 
to turn water from the Bandy Ditch to till decree- between the two 
date- <>f the decrees of the Handy Ditch. Investigation disclosed the 
true state of things, and suit was immediately brought by the Handy 
Company to set aside the decree-: brought, however, in the district 
court of Larimer County. Thus in its effort to save its right, the 
Handy Company precipitated, in the spring of L887, a legal contest 
not yet ended. The case was entitled "The Loudon Irrigation and 
Canal Co. et al. v. The Handy Ditch Co. et al." (22 Colo., p. 102.) 
The suit was originally brought in the district court of Larimer 
County and in eti'ect was an attempt to set aside the decrees for the 
entire district. The Handy Company, believing that the decree- of 
the older ditches were excessive and that they were entitled to have 
their entire decree of one date — the date of the beginning of construc- 
tion — instead of two dates, sought relief by the above action. 
The defendants (The Loudon et al.) denied the jurisdiction of the 
Larimer County court and alleged insufficient cause of action, which 
latter contention the court upheld, but claimed jurisdiction. Upon 
appeal to the supreme court, that tribunal reversed the lower court 
in the matter of jurisdiction, sustaining the law of 187i». section 19, 
which gave exclusive jurisdiction to the court where the decrees were 
first rendered, which in the case of district No. -i was the Boulder 
County district court. The case does not touch the point whether one 
district can reopen the decrees of another district after four years have 
elapsed. It simply says that any action growing out of the decrees 
must be tried before the court which rendered the decrees and within 
four year- of the date of such decrees. 
The effect of the decision is to establish more firmly the validity of 
a decree. If at any time after four year- an adjudication could be opened 
up, and especially if before another court, the adjudication would be 
of slight avail, and title to water could not be finally and firmly settled. 
When it is remembered that months and years of labor have been 
spent in arriving at a decision, it would be folly to allow the work to 
be a subject of question for all time. It would be eminently proper 
to allow a certain time to elapse to test the practical workings of the 
decrees before making them unassailable; but. very properly, there 
should come a time when decrees are established beyond the possibility 
of question. 
Upon being remanded, some new points were brought out. and so 
the case reached the supreme court a second time under the title of 
••The Handy Ditch Co. /•. The South Side Ditch Co. et. al." (26 Colo., 
p. 333.) 
