Imperial Valley press and the Imperial press., 1906-06-23
THE CADY CASE
Important Decision ReOdered by the
 Secretary of the Interior

me Q6ClSlOIl OI tIl6 OOIIIIIilSSIOIlOI Ol the General Land Office in the contest case of Meserve vs Cady involving the s l-2 of Sec. Y, Tp. l3 $. R. l4 E, s. B. M. This is the case where Meserve owned the water stock and Cady filed on the land. As soon as one year went by and Cady made his annual proof Meserve started contest against him on the ground that as he had not bought any water stock and could not get any water for his land owing to the fact that MeserVe owned the water stock for it; therefore Cady's annual proof was fraudulent and should be cancelled in order that Meserve might take the land It was q plain case of the same old contention that the water is owned apart from the land and that the owner of the water con- trols the land
 It will be remembered that Register Crookshank and Receiver Kinney ruled against Cady' and in favor of Meserve and his contention that the water stock owner controls the land and recommended that Cady's entry be cancelled and the land given to Me- serve. From this decision Cady ap- pealed a;d on Nov. 9th, 1905, the Commissioner of. the General Land office rendered his decision. reversing Register Crookshank and Receiver Kinney's ruling and awarding the land to Cady. This decision went rather fully into the case but the real point at issue. the right of the owner of the land to the water for its irrigation is covered in the following extract:
 The annual expenditure called for by the desert land law is required princi- pally as an evidence of good faith on the part of the entryman and to prevent him from holding lands in segregation for other purposes when he had no bona fide intent to reclaim.
 The defendant in this case has not only shown his good faith by the ex- penditure of larger sum than was re- quired, but it is shown that he did all in his power to make additional expen- diture in the purchase of the water right; that he forwarded for this pur- pose a draft for one hundred and sixty dollars to a water company which claim ed to control all of the running water apparently available for the irrigation of these lands
 1t appears that the waters appropri- ated by this company have been arbi- trarily apportioned by it for the irriga- tion of lands in the Imperial Valley of which the t1act in controversy forms a part; that price was fixed at which this water would be furnished to entry men and that the terms of payment were definitely set forth in by laws adopted for that purpose. It is shown beyond question that the defendant rendered three hundred and twenty dollars, the sum required as first pay ment upon a sufficient amount of water to irrigate his lands; that this tender was rejected for the alleged reason that the water apportioned for the irrigation Of the section III which the lands in controversy were situated had been assigned to tEe plaintiff in this case, who was attorney for the company. The plaintiff informed defendant that he had advanced the price of the water seven and One-half dollars per acre, and demanded cash payment of eight and One-half dollars per acre, or total sum of twenty-seven hundred and twenty dollars before any interest in the water could be transferred to the defendant.
 Meserve appealed to the Secretary of the Interior from this decision of the commissioner and on June llth the secretary filed the following decis- Ion absolutely sustaining the commis-
 s lg