The Bozeman courier. (Bozeman, Mont.) 1919-1954, 1923-05-16
Low Line COMPANY
wins DECISION
Judge POOrman Finds in Favor of
Defendants in Old Water Suit.
Settles Many Similar Cases.

In one of the most important water
rights decisions handed down by the
district court in recent years, Judge
W. ii. PoOrman, sitting in place of
Judge b. b. Law, who at the time
the case was tried was serving on the
supreme court commits, ion, found for
the defendants in the cases of George
Nerwolf, executor against the Low
Line Irrigation Company, and J. S.
Dyk ct al against the H. S. Buell.
Land Company ct al. Inasmuch as
the same questions were involved in
both cases, they were tried at the
same time, testimony starting Janu-
ary 70, and lasting into February.
Argument, were made the last day of
March and the cases taken under ad-
visement by the court.
The cases were the outgrOwth of
controversies as to the prior rights
or old water rights shares of stock in
the ditch companies and the decision
of the court disposes of many like
! ca es and actions which have been
! waiting the outcome of the two above
mentioned cases.
The effect Of the decisions is to
! finally decide the status of all stock
holders and users of water from the
Low Line canal and puts all o. them,
both old Fighters and stockholders. on
exactly the same basis. The deci-
k-ons are of more than local import
ance IN establishing new questions af-
fectlng the status of users of water
! from canals in Montana.
The two cases which were tried in
volved the questions which have been
In dispute between the Low Line Irri-
cation Company and its stockholders
for many years. In the Verwolf case,
! it was contended by Verwolf that a
right to purchase 80 inches OF water,
which he originally acquired from the
West Gallatin Irrigation Company in
connection with a quarter section of
land, was prior and superior to the
= rights Of stockholders of the Low
Line Company to water from the Low
Line canal The original deed to Yer
woif contained a provision prorating
} and cutting in case of shortage of
water, and a bylaw of the Low Line
Company contains the same provision.
The Low Line Company purchased
the Low Line canal in 1909, and it
wa contended by the defendants that,
since then, the same quantity of
water has been delivered to Verwolf
as has been delivered to a stockhold-
er owning 80 shares of its capital
stock, and because more than 10 years
had elapsed, Verwolf could not now
claim q superior right to lharehold-
ers.
In that case the court holds that,
both through adverse user and be-
cause of delay in asserting his rights,
the defendants contention was good.
and awards Verwolf the right only
to the same quantity of water, with
the same prorating and cutting, that
is delivered to the owner of 80 shares
of the capital stock of the Low Line
. Company.
In the Dyk case the plaintiffs con-
tention was that, because they had
either held deeds, with water rights
attached, similar to the John Yer
wolf deed, or because they annually
leased water from the West Gallatin
Irrigation Company, and notwith-
standing they had later either ex-
changed their rights to purchase
water for shares of the capital stock
. of the Low Line Company, or had
purchased stock outright IN the Low
Line Company, they had a superior
right to the use of such water from
the Low Line canal over those who
had later purchased stock in the Low
Line canal.
Continued on Page Six.)