The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1915-07-06
EzI3Es521z2<Ii.;9' s.

could be induced to sign contract on
tile mere chance of sharing with an
indefinite number of others, the water
from a system of which they could
have but little information In con-
nection with this belief he quotes from
the prospectus Of the company which
gives evidence that the company con-
sidered it had an abundance OF water
and asks why, with that belief, the
company should not, for the purpose
of making its contracts attractive, in
corporate in the contract an under
taking to furnish relatively small
specific amount of water.
Settlers Contract.
At this point, the court takes up
first the settlers contract and later
the contract of the company with the
state, showing where, despite the as
sertions of the company to the con-
trary, they are consistent with the at
titude of the settlers The contract
with the settlers, the judge says, Is an
agreement to sell specific water
right of one-hundredth of second
foot per acre for each acre of land
described, and as an incident thereto,
a propOrtiOnate interest in the irriga-
ton system The technical form OF
the contract is quite unimportaut, the
court holds, assuming that the in
|strument was not cunningly drawn to
deceive the unwary. While the two
contracts must be read together, the
court fcalls attention to the fact that
the settlers contracts are subsequent
to that OF the company with the state
and are controlling.
State Contract.
Taking up the state contract, Judge
Dietrich finds that there is an APP
parent conflict with the settlers con-
tracts in paragraph four, where the
state contract says that the capacity
of the reservoir must be sufficient to
provide ga acre feet for each acre
to be cultivated This apparent con-
flict he explains away further in the
|opinion by expressing the belief that
the state contract assumed that the
irrigation season being from April ]
to November l, the first aad last
months would be light and the total
amount of one-hundredth second feet
would not be required during that per
iod, SO that ga acre feet would be
Tile average duuOuuC "a WalCI W6C0 W
each acre during the entire season.
Why Protection.
If the settlers contracts convey NJ
specific water rights, the court can SCI
no reason for the incorporation of sew
eral protective clauses in the stat
contract holding that, in that cas-
there was no possibility of selling
water rights in excess of the carrying
lcapacity of the reservoir and cana
system and such provisions need no
have been incorporated in the stat
contract
Supposing that the company ha
not agreed to supply one-hundredt
of second foot per acre to sci
tiers, the court asks why the stat
should have been SO careful to de-
mand a reservoir and canal capAcit
of that amount. The rotation sys
item, he contends would not affect til
amount of water carried In the resel
voir or main canals. The ciause
paragraph 10 Of the state eontrac
which says that the capital stock {
the operating company shall consist /
] LIZ, 900 shares, the court believes mul
t Ibe taken In connection with other lin
liting clauses and pefmits the sale
! 1.-THE full amount Of shares only In cal