The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1911-05-19
COURT HANDS
down The Law
SUPREME COURT REVERSES DIS
TRICT COURT IN CASE
AGAINST DISTRICT.

Cities Have Perfect Right to Change
Grades of Streets and Irrigation
Companies Must Make Their
bitches to Standardization Of
Local Interest.
The state supreme court rendered
decision Saturday reversing Judge
Bryan of the district court of this
district. The decision Of the SUI
preme court is important as towns
and cities throughout the state may
be affected. Caldwell particularly is
interested because much the same
conditions prevail here as did at
Nampa where the suit arose. The
decision was rendered by Judge
MacLane, sitting in the supreme
court, and was concurred in by
Judges Ailshie and Sullivan. The
case is entitled city of Nampa, ap-
pellant VS.. Nampa-Meridian Irriga-
ton District and is an appeal from
judgment in favor of the defendant.
In 1895 Nampa, which was then
a village, granted the Boise City
Irrigation & Lands company an
easement and right of way for the
construction of lateral bitches to
convey water for irrigation pur-
poses through certain of its streets.
The company accepted the grant,
constructed it's bitches and supplied
water to lot owners in the village.
The rights and franchises of the
company named were subsequently
acquired by the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation district.
In 1909 Nampa, which in the
meantime had become a city, es-
[ tablished a grade for the streets
along which the bitches ran
; lower than the existing grade
i of the bitches and constructed
roadway according to the new
7 grade. In doing this work it tore
out and destroyed the irrigation
bitches, and served notice on the
irrigation company that it must re-
g construct its bitches beneath the
!, surface of the streets by means of
: thing or cast pipe.
The irrigation district failed to
j comply. Then the city and certain
d lot owners instituted suit to compel
9 tho company to install a pipe sys-
:, tenn along the streets and to de-
e liver water to those entitled to 1t.
It A demurrer to a complain alleging
the foregoing facts was sustained
y by the trial court and the case was
: dismissed. Appeal was taken from
J. the decision.
n The syllabus of the court in this
/ case sets up the following points Of
!, law:
leI Lot owners in a city who have
h become entitled to the use of water
q from an irrigation system cannot be
~ compelled to pay for the company's
: system, nor can they be denied
D. water for the reason that it's delivery
y has been made more expensive or
IL more burdensome to the company.
n Cities and villages have ample
" power under the law to establish the
grade of their streets and to recon
81 struct the roadbed on the grade
"A established.
it Destruction of an irrigation ditch
1t by city lawfully changing the
grade of its streets is not a de-
.u struction of the ditch owners ease
" ment or right of way in the streets
A grant to canal company of Z
:, right of way or easement for 1T
:, bitches in the streets of a city Il
- subject to the right of the city t.
:, regulate the manner of the exer
else of the easement, or to chang,
the grade of the streets In such
way as to require a corresponding
- change in the conduit for the de
% livery of water; and in exercising it
no right to grade its street the cit
So may, If 1t become necessary, re
10 move such bitches and require tn
'n' construction of the company's sys
a.. tenn by pipe line beneath the SUI
'u- face.
go An irrigation district is organize
ni to conduct business for the privat
luS benefit of the owners of the Ian
i'i within its limits. 1t holds its prof.
erty in a proprietary rather than 1
governmental capacity, SO that
AK must assume the burdens OF owner
IN ship.
Laying a pipe line necessitated
the lawful ramnYal of a ditch b