Phoenix weekly herald., 1897-07-15

pOo6CSSCio
 said territory, of which territory the said appropriators Of water for ssio purposes, were then inhsbitapte; that said corporation was also organized by and h behalf of said shareholders, ir order that they might respectively be enabled to more efficiently and more economically avail themselves of their respective appropriations of water, and protect the respective interests and 1 tights which they had severslly ecqnir ed in relation to the use of water for the
 necessary cultivation and irrigation Of
 she lands along the Salt River, which they OF their posseeeors or gfentors had acquired, owned, occupied or possessed tor the purpose aforesaid; plaintiffs further sllege that the waters of the | Salt River above referred to as having been appropriated by plaintiffs, their | gFautors or predecessors in interest, were at the time of such appropriations unappropristed public waters and were | subject to appropriation, and that the
 rights in and to said water, and the use
 thereof, so acquired by plaintiffs, their | Grantors or predecessors in interest, have ever since been vested in said re- speotive shareholders in said canal | company"
 "That the property acquired by said
 corporation st it's formation were, tbe
 structures constituting the Salt River Valley Canal dsm, the Salt River Vel-
 icy Canal, It's appliances appurtensnt l thereto, and other property and effects | of said corporation used in main tsinine | and operating said csnal."
 That the said rights respectively Of the shareholders, of, in and to the wat l CTS of the Salt River have never right
 fully or lawfully become the property
 of said corporation"
 Then follows sn array of facts tending
 to show an invasion of these individual rights of She plaintiffs as sppropriators
 of the water by its diversion to other
 persons, lands, canals, etc., to plaintiffs great injury. These facts are too
 numerous to set out here.
 The two grounds are distinct and sep eFste, although not stated in different counts. They depend upon different equitable principles. They call for different kinds of relief; indeed,
 the prayer of the bill Is for diff srent
 rel!efs. Thus, two equitable rights
 are declared upon, one ss sppropria-
 tors of water (this right Is alleged to be
 separate and independent). the other as
 shareholders in the corporation, and
 they gre so blended together as to make
 it impossible to say definitely where the
 one ends and bhe other begins. This
 The different characters in which the
 plaintiffs are proceeding are, on account
 of the subject matters, inconsistent.
 An ''apprcpristor" of the water and 8
 shareholder" in the corporation are not synonmous. They may be differ ent, the one may exist without the
 other, and this bilI,as we have just seen, substantially ayers thab these rights are different and independent. One defense cannot we'll be made to these two dis sinct grounds in the same suit; (Mit- lords Equity Plseding & Practice, 273 )l
 
 oses, she defendants must respond to the plaintiffs in 8 double cspseity-the one for the mismanagemento of corporate property, the other for an invasion Of individual rights; and the plsintiffs | would recover in two, but sntagonistIc, 1 charecters-in the one as au eppropria- 1 tor of the water in the other ne share | holder in the corporation. I do not see She way to adjust the two equities in the same decree. There Is another view, | h the light of which, this bill must fall | The bill challenges the right of the | Arizona Canal Company to exercise it's ] corporate frschise; it also attacks bhe validity of certain agreements, ,oontrasts aud transfers between the Sslt JAver Valley Canal Company mud the Arizona Canal Company, the Msrioove Canal Company, the Grand Canal Company and the Cross Cut Cane1 and Power Company. None of these last named companies are made parties to the suit. These companies are vitally interested in these agreements, contracts and dealings. The prayer is to caposl them To do so in she absence of the conps- niee is so adjudcate their rights with out hearing. To indirectly impair the corporate franchise of the Arizona Canal Company in it's absence, is m authorized. The doctrine of equity expressed in its most general form is, that all persons materially interested, either legally or benefoially, In the sub jsct matter of the suit, should be made parties to 1t, either as plaintiffs or de Iendants, so that there may be com Dlete decree which shall bind them all When an individual or corporation is ip ihe enjoyment of the subject matter or ( 1as 8 right, interest or estate in is,whfcb [ s liable to be defeated or diminished by he plaintiffs success, he has an imme- [ liste and direct interest in resisting the : plaintiffs demand and is in general ' ecessary defendant. Pcmeroy's Rem. l 31 q
 Mir. Pomeroy further says: "If per t on not thus immediately interested is 8 everthelees, so related 10 the subject T natter and to the principal defendant 4 hat, upon the plaintiffs succese, he q ill be liable to be proceeded against by 1 uch defendant, and to be compelled Ii 3 make compensation, in whole or ] part, for tbe lose, he is consequently .