New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1919-09-26
SUREME COURT
DECIDES IMpOR-
TANT CASES
COMMUNITY DITCH DECI.
SION OF INTEREST TO
MANY FARMERS IN ALL
THE IRRIGATED SECTIONS
OF THE STATE

The state supreme court, has af'
firmed the lower court in the case oi
the State of New Mexico, ex rel, w
Golf Black, appellee, No. 22ol VS.
The Aztec Ditch Company, ct al
Appellants, san Juan county.
Kelator filed an application for an
alternative writ of mandamus against
nunity ditch organized and existing
IN ca,d application alleged that he
corporation responder. was a CON-
u,unity ditch organized and esi,'ir2 q
under the laws of the state OF New
Mexico; that the individuals named
we're the commissioners of such CON-
nunity ditch system; the alternative
writ of mandamus was issued, re-
spondents answering admitting that
relator was a shareholder in the re-
spondent's company and the owner
Of land described in the petition. The
court after hearing evidence, enter
ed judgment making the alternative
writ peremptory and permanent, re-
quiring the commissioners to levy
equal and proportionate assessments
for the maintenance and repair of
the ditch upon all consumers in pro-
portion to the land irrigated and re-
luiring all to contribute for the main
renance and repair of the entire ditch,
to give to relator his proper proper
ton of the water in the ditch as his
share or interest bore to the total
interest or shares to install and main
tain proper headgatees and spillways
and to cease permitting water to
which consumers were entitled, from
going to waste to hold meetings as
required by law; keep proper rec
ords, etc, To review this judgment
this appeal is prosecuted
Judgment of the court below, af-
firmed.
Syllabus
lin an action of mandamus to
require officers of community ditch
to give to relator specified portion
of the waters carried by the ditch,
the rights and priorities of the con-
sumers can not be adjudicated, and
the individual water users are not
necessary or proper parties to the
suit. If the rights of the consumers
have not been adjudicated or fixed
by agreement or contract, and are
undetermined and unknown, manda-
mus will not lie, but the parties must
first secure an adjudication of the
rights of the consumers or water
users.
2-Where it appears from the APP
plication for the writ that the rights
have been fixed by contract and such
rights are known and determined,
md The nf the TaennnI.,,fa
admits such fact. the writ is prop
erly granted, compelling the commits
sioners to give the relator the water
TO which he is entitled.
3-The rights of individual water
users cannot be impaired in an ac-
ton to which they are not made par
ties and given their day in court.
4-Community acequias are public
acequias within the meaning of sec
tion I3l. Code 1915.
5-Section 5744, $3.50, and sos, Code
1915, construed. Held that under
these sections it is the duty OF the
owner of land irrigated by water
carried through a community acequia
to labor on the ditch IN the main
benance and repair thereof in pro-
portion to the land irrigated: and it
is the duty of all owners of land
under such ditch to assist in the
and repair. of the en-
tire ditch; that bylaw of such
corporation which re-
quires all water users under such a
ditch system to contribute towards
the repair of the ditch in a manner
other than that provided by statute
IS null and void.
GA bylaw of a private corpora
ton, or an ordinance adopted by a
corporation in order to be
valid must be consistent with the
law of the land and by a bylaw or
ordinance is contravention of a sta
tute of the state is invalid.
Opinion by Roberts, ]; Parker, c
J.. and Reynolds. ] concurring.
Judgment OF the district court in
sooorro county Is affirmed by the
supreme court. in the case of Elijio
Gutierrez. appellee. versus The Mon
oya Sheep company. appellant. This
$ an action of trespass by appellee
% recover damages for the depast-
iring by appellants sheep Z SIX
Instinct tracts Of land separated from
.ach other by the public domain,
md for damages. The Jury RETURN ,
d a verdict for the appellee. fix
ng his damages at $500. from which {
Judgment the appeal was prosecuted
n affirming the judgment of the ,
rial court. the supreme corrt hold
Z. Section 20. code l9i5 uh on
authorizes the owner OF unfenced
ands to mark the boundaries there
y and to post notices Of trespass.
nd upon compliance with the sec
ion to recover damages for tres !,
Ass committed by animals under
erd. Is no bar to a suit for viii
~ trespass where the owner has !,
Iot complied with the section.
2 Objections and exceptions to !,
he giving or refusing to give in !,
must be incorporated into Z
nd made part Of the bill of ex- :
options. and cannot be shown by the !,
ecord proper
g In a suit BY the owner of lands q
D recover fer the depasturing of the s
anne, evidence as to the inability of
he owner to procure other pasture
DR. his animals and the deprecfa- n
on of the value of his animals caus- Il
4 By lack Of feed occasioned BY the 4