Imperial Valley press., 1912-05-27
ton: what does the unissued stock o.

ton: what does the unissued stock of
the defendant corporation represent? 4
The defendant corporation was
formed for the purpose of enabling
settlers upon certain designated public
lands to become stockholders in the
corporation, and through the agency
of the corporation to secure for such
lands, upon equal terms and at cost,
the water required for irrigation, do
mestic and other purposes, from the
corporation known in these proceed
ings as the Mexican company" The
shares of stock represented the speci-
fic quantity of water the stockholders
would be entitled to receive. The de-
fendant corporation was, therefore, in
effect a mutual company. In Wiel on
water Rights in the Western States"
Pr. 1866, such companies are referred
to as private service companies, and
are described as follows:
Mutual companies are usually such
| llldl Slldlt vi otOSh lCBiCSCht liShto
to specific quantities of water, and
the stockholders right to supply rests
upon his stock, and not upon his status
as member of the public, the COM
pany being fomed to supply water to
its stockholders only"
| The general character of these cor
| poratiOnS is to serve and promote the
individual rights of the stockholders
upon equal terms in acquiring water
for the irrigation and cultivation of
their land. The shares of stock in
such company represent the water
rights secured by the company who
are settlers upon the land holding the
stock as representing the water right
| as appurtenent to the land upon
which the water is to be used.
The complainant is public service
corporation, and as such an agent of
| the state in the administration OF a
public use. Crescent Canal Co. VS..
Mpntgomery, 143 Cal, 24S, 252.) 1t was
| incorporated on the 23d day of April.
1896, for the purpose of appropriating
and diverting substantially all the wat
er of the Colorado river at point in
| California near the international
| boundary line between Mexico and the
United States. The complainant's OBJ
ject in appropriating this water was
to divert it through canals and bitches
and deliver it to the Mexican company
organized by and acting for and on
behalf of the complainant, and known
| to be used by the latter company for
the irrigation Of certain lands below
/ the international boundary line in
Mexico, and through this corporation
| to deliver water across the boundary
| line iii Imperial valley to the mutual
water companies, among others, the de
frndant, for dislrbul ION 10 lands of
| the stockholders of such companies.
/ The lands in Amperial valley did not be-
|
nally unoccupied desert lands belong
| ing 10 the government of the United
| States. except such school lands in
each township as belonged to the state,
and except a few alternate sections in
! the northern part of imperial valley
within the grant of the Southern Paci-
| fic company.
1t is conceded that the various cor.
| porations organized by the complain
ant and designated in this case as the
Mexican company and the several
water corporations incorporated by it
were but Instruments employed by the
complainant to carry out the purpose
Of its organization which was to collect
! from the settlers for the service of de-
| livering the water rate of 80 cents per
annum for each acre of land supplied
| by water. The right of the complain
| ant through the Mexican company to
collect for the service of delivering the
| water charge of 30 cents per annum
| for each acre of land supplied BY
water is called water rate, and is
not controversy in this case. This
charge is presumed to be reasonable
and just for the service rendered and
! the aggregate of these charges a suffi-
cient return for the capital invested
| by the complainant in the project. The
question is: Had the complainant the
/ authority as public service corpora
ton. by and through the instrumentali-
ties Of the corporation formed for that
purpose, the right to appropriate the
stock of the defendant company and
! by that means compel settlers TO pay
a further or additional sum fixed arbi-
trarily by the complainant as and for
a water right?
The lands included in complainant's S
irrigation project, including the lands
| at the point of diversion of the water
of the Colorado river for that purpose,
were originally and at the time the pro-
| ject was formed almost entirely public
| lands of the United States. We are,
| therefore, dealing with the question Of
right based primarily upon section 9
of the act of July 26, 1866 IA Stat,
25l, 253) incorporated into the revised
statutes as section 1888. That Sec
tion provides as follows:
| Whenever by priority of possession
rights to the use of water for min
4 ing agriculture manufa curing Or Ot h.