The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-11-14
IMPORTANT RULN
BY SUPREME G|II||
Involves d! First Test Of w.
Right Laws of lyOs ~, sS
1905. ''a
POWERS OF THE STATE /
ENGINEER REYIEN1
May Limit or Extend r;n.
he Sees Fit, Saws n" ''
opinion.

he first lest ever m,a.
of 1908 and 1905 in rola.c nlatc OF In y
preparation of water in ,S;sr 70 70 I.
acailng with the discretion,. aais, \
OF the state engineer in 'yas'y yny nj
tending the time for thc egaId &
IN application for apnro,,;l n ,1;9nliipletl.
was the subject Of an anVnpp,;;anncsu|
down by the supreme cIn oplnIon I'D
IN me case of William II p poTl's Tl'ss|
lnht, versus the Utah Con,i,,U, UO' !, 81
rover company and Thon,. m
trustee. The action inyolyS" = ~
to INC waters OF American p.A NE
In Utah county, upon wb;oLr LrVIk as
ties to the action filed ,n OOll I
Tor appropriation. "' dpplz1I
" appears from The reeo,1
closed in the opinion of lbo u y.
the Utah County liebt < pon INN
pany. filed an application fav favNI q
ond-i of the water j., '0r lN 4
which was the entire flow of a lae a
The application was modo 'as sn
Wit9 ynd the state engineer on ''f =,
I2ot' ana was approved BY %
May III, 1905. The comna1r le
siructed 10 begin work pu Hi Va
system, for which the npprnn,;as p
made, within ninety days from 'tT', ~
date. and to complete Il gi,S;n
months from that date " u
Delay in Completion
Tho work of construction
mcnccd but, after the oioS,.,ss Sn ss
had expired, thc company ou rcou.'.;
the engineer an extension Of ii,ss
which to complete, The work ~
granted the extension applied n,
was later granted another cy;.,a
time until December / I9O3
On December l6. 1905 h.,..
time the company had been Y'. s,.
complete ITS work had expired b,,uIsI
an application with the state ' s,..I
for all The waters uf Amorie,. \
creek, He commenced tbe cou.,-
of his power system within Il. n
required bv the state engines, J.
only worked on it three days n,
waS-n0tlticd to stop. lie did a i
lated filed his action against tss g
company in the courts
He contended that the staie ,,,,
exceeded his authority under NJ !
when he granted the compauy h y
extension of time. for the rczn,
tho time for the completion Of n !,
had expired before il applied h.
extension, and hence the comr,r, !
forfeited It's rights to The apworraI
The lower court decided ssai,s
and he raised the same Don't. = 4
peal. Il
What the Court Says
The supreme court review: !, \
siderable length the discretioriH \
ers of the state engineer urir
law, and holds that the enaizsa a
limit the applicant to a les lin
completing the appropriation, as.nI
also, for good cause shown, uIgi
time for completion up 10 a Ietl
five Years, which is the limit rkt
law. Il
In this ease it is held thai I'D
dence showing that the conTdEJ i
pursued its work with due dilissa3
was working on its system M
first period expired. was svdfr-
justify the engineer in granting 4 1
tension, and il WAS not an sbaHtr-I
OF the appropriation BY The o'll1I
So long as the applicant coni.sa
work in good faith it Is moi q
of discretion on the part Of L.
engineer 10 grant extensions o.
for completing the work ihe 3,
court says. hence the judgmss !
lower court is affirmed.
Justice Frick wrote The %
which is concurred in by Chici a
Straup and Justice McCarty.
McCoy's Stables y
Carriages and light livery. PE'si