Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-12-07
I'HE RIO GRAM \ WINS.
JUDGMENT OF LOWER COURT AFFIRMED.


The Supreme Court handed down an
opinion today in the case OF the Rio
Grande Western Railway company. re-
spondent. and the Telluride Power
Transmission company. l.. l.. NUM-
and l.. Holbrook. appellants. aflirminE
the decree of the lower court
This was an action to quiet title to q
piece of land lying south of the Provo
river In Provo canyon. The Rio Grandc
company claimed title under the act Of
Congress giving railroads right of waS
through canyons. The other parties set
up that for the purpose or building a
reservoir and dam, 1t was necessary to
ervoir and dam, 1t was necessary tc
use part of that particular strip. The
court below decreed that the Rio
Grande company was in lawful posses
sion of the land when the dispute
arose and that the Telluride Power
company had no right or title TO IL
The case was brought before the Su-
preme Court for review. The errors
cited raised the following questions
which the court goes into fully;
First. Had there been statutory
forfeiture of the plaintiffs chatter IN
consequence OF u failure to complete
and put its road In operation and re-
quired by the statute, after Its articles
were filed with the auditor and secre-
tary of the late territory, or the State
of Utah?
Second. Had plaintiff the lawful
right to locate its right of way in the
canyon, and had II located 1t over the
land In dispute, and was II in the ac-
tual possession thereof when defend
ants interfered?
Third. Did the law require the plain
L.. la. a
office. II profile OF its road ir order to
rely on location and actual p issesslon?
Fourth Had the defendants, or
either of them, made such apptopria-
ton. and had they, or either OF them.
such possession of the land in dispute.
as authorized them to hold 1t against
the plaintin?
In passing upon the first question
the court takes sections 235S-G0- 81 60 so
of the compiled laws OF Utah. In order
to determine whether the evidence
showed a violation of any OF its pro-
visions. The court finds that the Rio
Grande liz railroad corporation ms
contemplated by section 235s and that
" was thus entitled to ten years from
the time it duly filed them, within
which TO finish It's road and put 1t in
fuil operation. Taking this view of
that section the court finds 1t unneces-
sary to decide, whether or not IL is
self executing
on the second question the court
holds that the plaintiffs location of its
right OF way over the land and its
possession is lawful
The third point the court finds that
had the land been surveyed, the plain
TIN would have had twelve months
within which to have made the locn-
ZION. but II being unsurveyed II Will
sun have twelve months after Il Is sur
veyed by the government, within which
TO HE with the land officer, n profile
of its road.
The fourth question, ms to the de-
PENDANTS right to the land in dispute
the court holds that the defendants
might have obtained right to any un-
appropriated waters of Provo river to
operate machinery for irrigation pur-
poses, but such right. the court is of
the opinion, should be exercised within
reasonable limits.
Concluding the court SAYS:
I'VE cannot regard the plaintiff ms n
mere Intruder on the defendants pJses-
sions. nor can we hold that they had q
right to prevent the plaintlff's employ
es from grading 1t, and to eject plain
till from actual possession. II Is true
the defendants had surveyed for dams
and reservoirs at different points on the
river, but they had not taken and did
not hold actual possession of the land
in dispute.
The opinion is written by Chief ms
tlce Zane and is concured in by JUS
tice Bartch and Justice Miner.
Hunter Discharged.
The trial pf OLIVIA, JI,,t.,. .ata.as,