Lincoln County times. (Jerome, Idaho) 1911-1919, 1912-03-21
LIABLE FOR DAMAGES.
Irrigation Companies Liable Where Wa
ter is not Furnished as Specified
in their Notices.
An Important Supreme Court Decision
Handed Down on tuesday.

The supreme court yesterday de-
creed, in Il decision handed down in
the case Of Virginia lianes against
the Idaho Irrigation Co., that when
"A Carey act company enters into a
contract to provide water ON the
settler, land beginning at certain
stated date, and the water is not
forthcoming at that time, that the
company j. liable for damages sus
tanned 10y the settler.
Applying a. it does, to all Carey
act companies, and all settlers on
such projects in the state, the courts
ruling l. regarded ~ one of the most |
important rendered from that tri- |
bunal in months.
The decision was fathcred 10y jus
ticc sullivan and concuurcd in by
both Chief Justice Stewart and jus
ticc .Ailshic
The action was originally brought
to recover damages for failure To de-
liver water, and when the trial was
. had in the district court in Lincoln
county, Judge Walters presiding, a
Judgment in the sum of $500 was
awarded Mr. lIaneS 10y the jury.
This the supreme court atlirms. In
addition Ia ii, ruling upon the fea
lures regarding the recovery of dam
agr-. the court also defines it, atti-
tudc relative To the interest on de-
: ierrcd payments and the reclama-
e. tion of the settlers land. 1t j. pro-
vidcd that when the Carey act irri-
CATION company notifies the settler
of the date when water Is to he
e ready for delivery, that the time Is
I fixed in which the landholder must
+. cultivate and reclaim his land. The
4. date for the beginning of interest on
deferred payments on the settler :
water contract j. also governed u,
= the date of delivery of water.
= Under the provisions of the set
? tier, contract, ii Is provided that
the interest from April |, 1909 AT I
per cent per annWn, may be charged
' ON halancr Of purchase price if wa
II ter j. available from the canals {"
l. the company for use during the ir
,r rigating season of 1909, and if no
available fer that season the inleres
snail commence when water j. avail
y able.
T. luder the provisions of section
If l64S, revised codes, it j. made tin
,. duty of Il Carey act irrigation com
D pany to notify the settler when wa
ter is ready for delivery, in orde
" that the settler may improve hi
m land and make the reclamation re
n auircd in order To secure title from
IN the state for his land.
The giving of such notice unde
~ the contract and law served to ii,
1, the time within which the settle
e must cultivate and reclaim his lane
,p and also fixes the time. if the waite
- is furnished, when interest ShaI
begin ON deferred payments on hi
1T water contract, and it was the dut
of the construction company I
IN furnish the water after il had give
., the notice.
- From the decision proper a mum
'' her of pertinent paragraphs whic
nj have a direct hearing upon certa'
is issues Of the case and which are
.ro particular interest to the Carey Ian
l., act settlers are here appended.
~ It would I've strange doctrll
III indeed To hold that the Scttl
cd would he Obliged to pay intcre
VI upon receipt of a notice that wat
nv would hc ready on certain da
~ and the company not hr ohlig'
~" under the contract To deliver hl
'''- the water.
Icd If the irrigation company, hell
inc in control and in possession ol {
III system. is not liable under the ca
tract, no one is.
"' Under the state of facts, the ca
nty tracts aud the law, there can he II
one rational conclusion therefrol
and that j. il the settler was injur
hv failure to deliver water, the ir
=" cation company is liable.
fit,
of parties incorporate this in Tin
ept platform and nominate lcgiSlat