Arizona republican., 1904-03-30
HIS REVIVED RIGHT
Decision in Brochman ys. the Grand
 Canal Co.

Among the decisions in the water cases handed down by the supreme court last Saturday only the decision in the case of Gould against the Mari copa canal company has been mere than alluded to because in that ease was set forth at greater length the doctrine of the court. But to many of the water users of the valley the de- cision in the case of Thomas Brcck- man will be of greater interest than the Gould decision. The Brockman case brought at the same time as the others was different from any of them in one respect. He had apparently forfeited whatever right he might have had while the ether litigants were re- lying upon the fact that they and their predecessors in interest had long been appropriators of water and that their rights as aPpropriators had long been recognized by the defendant canal companies. In Brockman's as in the others judgment had been rendered against the plaintiff in the lower court in which it was held that he had vol Untarily surrendered his right and had TO claim upon the company. That judgment was reversed last Saturday in an opinion by Justice Sloan in which there is applied to his case the principle laid down in the Gould case. He was moreover held to be an ap- proprietor, though a recent one.
 The opinion is as follows:
 This case is controlled by the law applied in the case of Gould vs. The Mariccpa Canal company decided at this term. The organization of the ap- pellee, The Grand Canal company, it's history, it's practice with regard to recognition of leases Of it's shares of stock by the holders therecf give it the status found by this court to have been assumed by the Salt River Val ley Canal company in the case of SlCsser vs. The Salt River Valley Cln- al company, 65 Pac. 332, and the Mari copa Canal company in the case Of Gould vs. The MaViccpa Canal com paEy.
 ''The record shows that Brockman from 1878 to 1888 was the owner of d share of stock in The Grand Canal company and of the water right privi- lege recognized as appurtenant there tC, and irrigated his lands by means of the same from the cOmpanys canal. That in the year 1888 he sold his land and water right to one Shook. That in 1890 he repurchased the land with cut the water right and thefeafter ob- tained water from the Grand Canal company by renting other water rights CT shares Of stock representing them until the year 1899 when he ap- piled for water for the ensuing season and was denied the same by the ap- pellee upon the ground that he was not a shareholder or a lessee Of share of stock.
 "The segregation of his water right frCm the land and the sale Of the lat ter to. Shook and his repurchase of the land without the water right must be held to have been an abandonment by Erockman of his original right of ap- propriation. Under the law declared in the Gould case, when, after his re- purchase he began the irrigation of his land by means of water obtained from the appellee's canal, he then and there initiated a new appropriation.
 The Judgment of the court below is reversed and a decree will be entered eniOining The Grand Canal company from ill any manner CT by any means whatsoever preventing a flow of water from the Salt River through the Grand Canal to the lands of the plaintiff. de- ''iACGN III -iAf NOlt AldiAils III siii dlllOuIl sufficient for the proper cultivation Of the same and not exceeding the amount used by him on said lands and furnished by the appellee since 1890, upon the payment to the appelIee of its reasonable charge for such service, and in compliance with the reasonable rules and regulations governing the diversion, carriage and distribution Of water in its canal. whenever and at all times when the water available for diversion and carriage in the com pany's canal is not required and used by appropriators Cf water under the canal having prior rights of appro- priation