The Glenwood post., 1908-07-25

ripen into a right by prescription
Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Ashcroft.
Supreme Court of California, "a Pa
cifc 613.
Partition Of Water Rights.
Tenants in common of land borl
ering on a stream and severally in
possession of particular tracts there
to, subsequently allotted to them by y
Partition decree, jointly constructed a
ditch from the stream across one of
the tracts, and diverted water on their
tracts for irrigation. The partitio1
decree did not mention the ditch nor
refer to water rights. Held, that un-
der Civ. Code, Sec. 1lO4, providing
that transfer of real property pass
es all easements attached thereto, eac
an easement in the tract over whici,
the ditch was constructed for the bene-
ut of the other tracts passed under TIL,
decree as appurtenant to the latter
tracts to the extent that the ditch was
at the time of the decree obviously aud
permanently used to irrigate the tracts
and to such part of the tracts as hal
been actually irrigated from it.-An.
aheim Union Water Co. V. Ashcroft.
Supreme Court of California, "a Paci-
fc 6l3.
Organization of Irrigation District.
Where an irrigation district has
been organized in accordance with the
irrigation law of this state, and has
voted to issue bonds for the construc.
tion or purchase of canal system,
the fact that said system will supply
and water lands outside of the distric:
does not render said district or the
proposed issue of the bonds invalid
Settlers Irr. Dist. v. Settlers Canal
Co. Supreme Court of Idaho, "a Pa
cific s29.
Suit to Establish Priorities.
In suit between the appropriations
of the waters of stream involving
the rights and priorities of the sever
al appropriations, the users and con-
sumers of water under a canal that |
has appropriated water for the pur.
pose of sale, rental. or distribution |
are not necessary and indispensable
parties to the action, and decree
in such case is valid and binding as
between all the parties to the action.
Farmers Cooperative Ditch Co. V.
Riverside Irr. Dist. Supreme Court OF
Idaho, "a Pacific 76l.
Appropriation Of Water.
Interference by defendants, prior
appropriations of water, with the dam
of plaintiffs, junior appropriations, by
which water was diverted to plain.
tiff S lands for irrigation, held pro
perly enjoined any water to which de
PENDANTS were entitled as prior ap
propriators, even if a prior decree was
res judicata, or showing that, as the
dam was allowed to be maintained, as
much water would reach defendants
land as though there were no DAM
Fuller " Sharp. Supreme Court of
Utah. "a Pacific s13.
Irrigation Outside of District.
Where bonds of an irrigation dis
trict have been authorized by vote
of the qualified electors of said dis
trict, and the benefits accruing from
works are apportioned and distributed
to the lands in said district, and sail
district and its officers have acted in
said matter wholly with reference to
the land within the boundaries of said
district, the fact that the canal sys-
TEN or the works supply water to ir-
rigate lands outside of the irrigation
district does not affect the validity of
the proposed issue of bonds.-sett!ers
Irr. Dist. v. Settlers Canal Co. Su- |
preme Court of Idaho, "a Pacific s29.
Injury From Diversion.
Where the evidence, in an action to
enioin diversion of water from a
stream from which plaintiffs irrigated
their land, showed that the stream
was dry part of the year. and that
when the water began to flow it took
several weeks to reach plaintiffs land,
owing to the sandy bottom of the bed
which must necessarily become satur-
ated before any water would flow over
it, a diversion by defendants would
postpone the time required to reach
plaintiffs and result in their injury.
since they were entitled to have the
stream maintained in its natural state
-Huffner v. Sawday. Supreme Court
of California, "a Pacific 424.
Rights Of Way for Irrigation Ca
nails.
Under the provisions of Sundry
C;ru Accommodation Act Cong Aug.