Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-12-01

same to be sold and disposed OF to
the best ability of the parties here
to-"
By the Act of Congress known as
the Carey Act, no land is acquired by
any person, company or c~orporat1o1,
unless. (if a natural person. he should
become an entryman, in which case
El6O acres would be the maximum
acreage such entryman might acqlslre.
Tie Carey Act by its several provls-
ions contemplates the establishment
| and perfection of reclamation proJ-
ects, the same to supply water Tor
the irrigation OF a given tract OF land,
and when completed, the person.
whether natural or artificial, conduct
ing the same, derives his or its prot
! its from the sale of the water rights
to actual settlers on the lands Gov
erred by the reclamation project. The
Act provides for temporary with
| drawa1 of the public lands from entry.
/ An application for a temporary with
drawal of lands under the provisions
of the Act means that the applicant
proposes to irrigate the lands re-
quested to be withdraw from public
entry and desires time to make the
necessary surveys, maps. plats, de-
examinations and specifications to
comply with the government require
ments. The object of the temporary
withdrawal is to protect the appli-
cant from interference by persons at
/, tempting to acquire lands within the
project other than through the pro-
cedure established for Carey Act
projects. One who seeks to carry
out a reclamation project under the
Carey Act must file with the State
Engineer of the State Of Nevada al
application for a water right com
m%ensurate to the acreage sought te
be reclaimed. (Rev. L. 1912, sec
3Oo8). The effect of the temporary
withdrawal is to withhold the lands
for one year from entry under public
land laws.
One who seeks to perfect a project
under the Carey Act, as we read the
law, has nothing whatever to do with
the sale or disposal Of the land Gov
cred by the project. When the lrrr-
! CATION system is in condition to de
liver water to settlers, the price al
which water rights will be. sold tt
such settlers having been fixed by
contract between the State Carey Ac'
commission and the party in charge
of the project, Or. L. 1912, BOYD, the
lands arexthrown open for entry ane
allotment of not exceeding 100 acre:
to each entryman. The payments fol
the land are made by the entryman tc
the State and the patent issued to-
the land is from the State to the en-
trynan. The right to the use OF the
water, and not the land. is sold by
the party perfecting the project Is
the actual settler. (Stat. 1911. "a; z
Stat. L. H2-422).
A contract to do a thing Whlcf
cannot be performed without a viola
ton of the law is void, whether tn
parties knew the law Or not.
R. c. l., oo4.
The contract here in question as
) sumes the carrying out OF a scnem'
made impossible by the very law un
J der which the scheme was to be per
:, fected. If we read the contract cor
rectly, it assume the right OF tn
parties to sell and dispose OF the LAM
and acquire a profit from such sal
and disposition. The right of sale /
expressly reserved by the Fedora
statute to a third party, namely, tn
:, State. If the contract had contem
plated the development OF an irrlga
ton system and the sale OF the waite
>. therefrom to settlers upon the puDll
:. domain under the system, the con
, tract would have assumed the per
: Torrance OF that which under the 'lav
was within the power OF the contract
ing parties. 49,, , . 81;
II II may, we think, be safely sal
that the contract here in question as
= sumed the existence of an essentla
TACT. namely, the right Of one or Dot
e of the parties to sell and dispose .
the lands under the law known as tn
Carey Act. This was a false assumE
s ton. and a contract based upon sue
4 has been said to be one where ther
is no meeting of the mOds in reai't
{ and hence no contract.
Nordyke & Marmon co. VS.. kel
S lor, 155 Mo. 643; IS Am. St. Rep. ou
The obligation imposed upon I'll
e appellant herein to pay to the respol
v dent the sum Of money specifeo u
til the first sale Of 100 acres ma
been accomplished contemplated
/ termination Of the obligation by d
o incident made impossible by law. !,
the contract had PROVIDED ina u
sum specified should be paid 10 g.
= spondent each month until the TT
~entry1nan a llleu upon ~ 49, =,
Ie der the project, or until the mrs. (,
+ trvman. having filed on 100 acres u
&c dc; the project, had assumed the Q
l- legation of paying for the water Il
d 16o acres, or until the first entry'ns
E had made payment to the stare, s.
4 until the first entryman had pa'd /
g water for the first 100 acres, the
y under either of these,~a conditl(
4 might be presented capable OF : =
J. complishment by one or po'n =, o n, :
e. hon was subject to implied conc
lg tons incapable of performance
ne respondent or by the joint efforts
n the parties, and hence u~nenforcean
le. dexter vs.. Norton, 7 Am. KEEP. 81
,g Booth VS.. Spuyten Duyy,l ko'rl
is Mil Co., 60 n. y. 491). THIS con-
m ton arose not by subsequent acts
O. conditions, but was emoodleo ~,
or -~.+ro~% ,{caIt ar the III