Los Angeles herald., 1891-06-04
Matthew Gage Loses a Case
in the Supreme Court.
A Decision of Great Interest to
Riverside Irrigators.
The Waters of the Santa Ana River
Finally Disposed of.
Gage Declared to Be Entitled to Only
ESQ Tnches--The Riverside Water
Company Confirmed in
,t. Its Claim.


ceived from Sacramento the decision of
the supreme court in the case Of the
Riverside Water company VS.. Matthew
Gage, which was decided against the
defendant in the superior court Of San
Bernardino, and by him appealed. The
suit involves the title to 450 inches of
the waters of the Santa Ana river ,sand
has excited good deal of interest at
Riverside, where the litigants both have
large holdings. The decision follows in
full:
'sThe plaintiff a California corporation
organized for the purpose OF appropriate
ing, owning, selling and distributing
water for the irrigation Of lands, and
for domestic and other purposes, brings
this suit to determine the adverse claim
of the defendant to a portion of the
waters of the Santa Ana river, and for
en- Injunction restraining the defendant
from diverting water in excess of his
right.
1.-THE findings and decree of the
superior court were in favor of the
plaintiff, and the defendant appeals
from the judgment, claiming that the
allegations of the complaint, and that
they are insufficient to support the
decree.
"The substance OF the decree is that
plaintiff is, as against the defendant, the
owner and entitled to the use OF all the
water flowing in the Santa Ana river at
the head. of the defendants ditch dur
ing the irrigating season of each year, j..
O., the months of May, June, July, Au-
gust and September, except 2891a
inches, which the defendant owns and
is entitled to use, and the defendant is
perpetually enjoined from diverting or
obstructipg the flow past his ditch of
any water in excess of that quantity.
''It is contended in the firstplace that
the decree is erroneous because it goes
entirely beyond the case made by the
allegations of the complaint. But we
think counsel for appellant misconstrues
the complaint. It alleges, very clearly
and explicitly, that the plaintiff at the
commencement of the action was, and
for more than ten, years prior thereto
had been, the owner and entitled to the
use of all the waters fowingin the. Santa
Ana river, at the point where defend
ants dam was erected, in excess OF 200
inches, measured under q four-inch
pressure; that defendant claimed some
estate, title or interest in said waters in
excess OF said 200 inches, which claim
was wrongful and unfounded, and that
he had wrongfully and without right
placed obstructions in the river which
prevented the water from flowing down
to plaintiff, as it was of right
accustomed to flow. whereby plaintiff
had been deprived of the use
of upward OF 450l inches of water.
"This is not claim, as appellants
counsel contends, that the plaintiff is
owner and entitled to the use OF 450
inches, and no more, of the water flow
ing in the santa Ana river at the defend
ants dam, but on the contrary is claim
of all the water flowing at that point
except 200 inches, and that the defend
ants claim to any water in excess OF
that quantity is wrongful and unfounded.
The allegation that plaintiff has been
deprived of the use and enjoyment of
upwards OF 450 inches of water by the
acts of defendant in erecting the dam,
does not limit the plaintiffs claim to
that quantity, or in any manner qualify
the allegation that it owns all the water
in excess of 200 inches.
"The issue rendered on this point was
very clearly defined by the express ad-
mission Of the defendant in his answer
that he did claim all the water flowing
in the Santa Ana river at the point of
his dam, and his allegation that his
claim was lawful and valid. The find
ings of the court were exactly responsive
to this issue, and the decree follows the
findings.
"The second point made by the de-
fendant is refinement on the first and
consists of a criticism upon the allega-
ton and finding that the plaintiff was
owner OF quantity of water at the de-
fendant's dam. 1t is urged that an ap-
proprietor OF water does not become the
owner of the very body of the water as
his personal property until he has ac-
uuired the control of it in conduits or
reservoirs of his own. Canal Co. vs.
Hoyt, 81 Cal. 46).
The proposition as stated is undoubt-
edly correct, and, if in this case as in
the case cited, the plaintiffs right of
action depended upon its ownership of
the corpus of the water at defendants
dam, as it's personal property, the OBJ
lection to the findings would be mate
rial. But in this case the plaintiff is not
seeking to recover the value of water
which had become its. personal prop
erty. It is seeking the determination
, of the adverse claim Of defendant to the
right to divert and use portion of the
stream, and the allegation and finding
of ownership and right of use of all
water flowing in the stream at defend
ants dam in excess OF certain number
of inches is only mode, and,a very apt
and sufficient mode Of designating the
quantity of water to the unobstructed
how OF which the plaintiff is entitled.
1.-THE remaining points urged by the
appellant all relate to various specific
findings OF the court, to the effect that
plaintiff has acquired by prescription
certain rights as against the defendant,
and the defendant is barred by certain
sections of the statute of limitations
from the assertion OF any rights he may
have had as riparian owner.
"It is contended by the appellant that
it is not enough to find that the plaintiff
has acquired prescriptiye right to water
as against defendant, but that the facts
must be found from which prescript-
i've right arises and it is further con-
tended that although the bar of the
statute of limitations may be pleaded by
bald allegation that claim or defense
is barred by particular section of the
. code, q finding upon such issue is not
sufficient unless it shows the existence
of every fact necessary to bring the par
ty pleading the statute within the pro-
visions of the section relied upon.