The Glenwood post., 1908-07-25

hundredth meridian that the poyeru.
ment might grant to settlers and pur-
chasers subsequent to the passage Of
the act, and to thereby reserve the
easement and right of way for the
construction, maintenance, and .operx.
tion of any bitches and canals the
government many construct at any
time in the future for the irrigation
and reclamation of arid lands.-Greep
v. White. Supreme Court of Idaho.
SO Pacific 971.
Rights Of Users to Water or corpora.
| ton.
water company or corporation
may appropriate and divert the waters
OF a stream for the purpose Of sale,
rental, or distribution for any benef
clal use or purpose and In such
case the appropriation belongs to tbs
ditch company, with perpetual right
of use vested in the users and con.
sumers to whom the water has once
been delivered, and such perpetual
right so vested in the user or con.
sumer can only be defeated by fail
ure to pay the annual water rents
and comply with lawful requirements
in relation to the use.-Farmers Co.
operative Ditch Co. " Riverside Ir..
Dist Supreme Court of Idaho, "a Pa
cifc 76l.
Irrigation of Public Lands.
Where contract between plaintiff
the state of Oregon, and defendants,
for the reclamation of certain desert
lands, depended for its validity on
Act. Cong. Aug. 1s, 1894, c. 3o1, 2s
Stat. 422 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
1854, as amended by Act July H.
1896, c. 42O, 90 Stat. 413 ~. s. Comp.
st. 1901, p. 1866, and Act March ;,
1901 c. s53, 81 Stat. 1888 ~. 8.
Comp. st. 1901. p. 1850, providing
for the reclamation and irrigation of
certain parts of the public domain tn
be conveyed to the states on perfor-
nance of certain conditions, and that,
before snch act, there could have been
no dealings between the parties with
reference to the subject Of the con.
tract, an action by the state to anrul
the contract because of defendants
failure to comply Herewith wa, one
arising solely under the laws Of the
United States, and therefore remov.
able to the federal courts.-StAte Of
Oregon v. Three Sisters Irrigation 90. -
e. s. O. suit Court, strict of Ore.
gon. 1853 Federal 346.
Appropriation.
Where defendant in water suit,
brought for the purpose of determin-
ing priorities of appropriations, an.
swers the complaint, and also hles .
cross complaint, in which he sets up
his claim to certain quantity Of the
waters of the stream and pleads the
encts emitting him to decree es'ah-
ing his rights and he raises no
ot:.ct,on to the isuficien;S of des-
cr.lt .on of the lands to =. irrigated
p. contained in the complain.. and in
na say calls the matter to The atten-
ton cf the trial court, and decree
IS entered describing the lan,fs to be
irrigated both by the plaintiff and the
defendants and all the parties to the
action in the language of the com
plant and the cross complaints, any
insuilciency, error, or defect in the
description must be first raised in the
trial court and called 20 the attedr.on
of the court entering the Decree, be-
for it can be considered on appeal,
and in case of appeal any error as-
signed by the appellant in reference
to such defective or insufficient des-
cription will be held to have been par.
ticipated in and invited by the appel
liant, and he will not be allowed
reversal of the judgment on account
thereof.-Farmers Cooperative Ditch
Co. v. Riverside Irr. Dist. Supreme
Court of Idaho, "a Pacific 76l.
DETROIT Mich July 23-With the