Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1922-06-09
Contract; Intention of Parties; Carey
Act Company; Water Supply

Contract; Intention Of Parties; Carey
Act Company; Water Supply
The intention of the parties is 10
be deduced from the language en-
Moved by them, and the terms OF the
contract. where unambiguous. are con :
elusive in the absence OF averment
and nroof of mistake, the question De
-ino not what intention existed IN tne
minds Of the parties, but what 1nten-
-tior 10 EXPRESSED by the language useo.
when written contract is clear anu
,,naou;vocaf it's meaning must De ue-
.sorrv,;nad nv its contents alone; ana
reani,p cannot be given 1t other than
49,. ernressed, Hence words canno.
~ road into a contract which import
;ntent wholly unexpressed when the
contract was executed. Where the
contract evidences care in its prepar-
alton, it will be presumed tna 80
vords were employed deliberately anu
with intention -,
2. A Carey Act Company "iu pe
held to the performance OF us con
tract to deliver to purchaser 'ne
water provided for by the contrac.' VI
resnond in damages for its ueiaui' ~
This regard, unless such perlorliianoe
is shown to have been excused
snneal from the District Court OF
tho Fourth judicial District, Blaine
comfy. Hon. H. F. Ensign Juuee.
Action for Damages. From Juos
-r,ant for defendant, plaintihs appeal
Reversed. How
Harlan D. Heist and Hawley Ham
Low for appellants. Walters Hoos,n
p pailev and r. P. Parry for respond
ont w. G. Bissell, Amicus curiae'
DUNN, J. e,
mis- action was brought by appen-
.r+s for damages for failure OF re-
Snondent TO furnish water during tne
season of 1915 for irrigating certalh
lands owned by appellants, accorolhs
~ contracts existing between the part
les To this action Respondent is q
CORPORATION organized for the purpose
- oo,,s+ruoting an irrigation system
ond nroviding water for the recIama-
t,o,, Of lands in Blaine and Lincoln
Counties under what is commonly
Known as the Carey Act, and appen-
ants are holders of four contracts en-
tared into between the respondent on
+he one hand and appellants and their |
nrod ecessors in interest on the other. |
THE case was tried before jury ana
. verdict returned in favor OF respond |
ants From the Judgment entered up
on said verdict this appeal was taken
Numerous errors are assigned by ap-
nel1ants but we think the case may De
disposed of in this court by determ-
ination of one question, or possibly
TWO.
Five segregations of land have been
made under the contract between the
and the state OF ldano
numbered respectively 8 10, IL, II
md %. The land contracts involved
n this action were made under what
3 known as the first segregation, list
No. 9: but it is conceded by both par
les that the contracts entered ino be-
les that the contracts entered into be-
ween respondent and the state OF Ida
10 as to lists 9, 10, IL and II and the
ndividua1 contracts involved herein
re to be considered and construed |
s one contract. Subsequent to the !
making OF the contracts covering the
ands embraced in lists 9, 10, IL and II
espondent entered into what is called
supplemental contract with regard | .
D lands embraced in list No. q 1t
, urged by appellants that the right |
the respondent to distribute water
, settlers on the lands embraced in |
st % on an equal footing with those
pom lands embraced in the four lists
an be and ought to be adjudicated
this action. This question cannot
e determined in this action for the
,ason that this issue is not presented | :,
Y the pleadings herein. and for the !
lrther reason that if such issue were y
resented by the pleadings, not all :,
the parties necessary to a full de- =
rmination of this question are be-
re the court.
The sole question to be determined
whether respondent bound itself to -
liver the specific amount of water y
I out in the contracts. viz, one - =
shtieth OF a cubic foot of water per -
cond per acre during the irrigating -,
ason, so tnat in case Of it's default -
this regard it can be held TO respond -
damages. The contention OF appel y
ITS is that the contracts must be - -
interpreted, while the contention OF !.
'pondent Is that respondent bound ~
elf only 70 deliver TO appellants ~
sir proportiopate part OF the water =,
u could be supplied from It's appro- -
alton In Big Wood River and Malad ~,
yer, SO thai in case OF shortage Ia ~
supply due 10 drouth or 20 other
Eural ceusas Us contract would be "'
nlled II Appellants rsceiyed theif atl
! proportion ~ chs available water Ri
lpiy.
lesponaent further contends thai ="
'lpg the year 1912 vhen che alleged t''
mage Qeeupea u Was acting simply fni
lhs place ~ 40 heldlnF ana oper ro
~ company The taE Wooa lifal ra'
.'rfolg ane Canal Company ana ifl
u bea pe responsibility Hifh ~ 1io
\ ~ ifF rRieg auppY ffenpi ia ifp