White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1926-12-17
DECREE AFFIRMED

The following is copy of the order
Diminishing the appeal from the Web
ster decree in the water right case
handed down by the Circuit Court of
Appeal on November 29:
In the United States Circuit Court
cf Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Before Dietrich, Neterer and Kerri-
gan, District Judges.
Kerrigan, District Judge:
II. II. Boie. ct al, appellants vs..
Black Rock Power & Irrigation com
papy, respondents.
The Black Rock Power & Irrigation
company, ct al. appellees herein.
brought suit to quiet their title to a
Power plant, transmission line, and
pumping station situated on the Col
umbia River From a decree quieting
said title 357 defendants appealed to
this court, and were successful in re-
versing the decree. (Adanson v.
pany, (CCA-9) 297 Fed. 905. There
after in obedience to our mandate the
District court for the Eastern District
of Washington entered new decree,
from which 40 of the original defend
ants again have appealed.
The facts require no statement ad-
ditional to that conta ned in our former
opinion. The contention now made
is that the present decree. like the old
one. excludes the appellants as water
users from any property right in ap-
pellees' irrigation instrunentalities, and
leaves them virtually in the position OF
contractces.
While it is true that the decree de-
clares the appellees to be the owners in
fee simple OF the legal title to those
instrumentalities, it also provides that
said property is subject to and inn
pressed with a perpetual trust. nevertf,.-
less, for the use and benefit of the de-
PENDANTS and their respective success
sors in interest to the extent re-
qrired to surply the lands OF said
bencficiaries with water in amount and
season reasonably necessary for the
purposes stipulated in said benefit
ciarie3' several deeds, contracts or
instruments CT purchase" 1t is clear
that these provisions recognize and
decree an equitable estate in the prop
erty involved; and it is equally clear
that such an estate conforms exactly
to our former opinion, in which it was
said: Appellants rights are pre-
served by the decree of foreclosure.
survived the receivers sale. and in the
instrumentalities are an equitable es-
tate Of which the appellants cannot be
deprived" Appellants, therefore, were
not entitled, as they now argue, to any
epccies of legal interests therein.
whether by way Of lien, easement,
atrial title. AS ccstuis que trustent
thev have been awarded everything to
which they were Untitled by virtue OF
ouT former opinion.
1t is also contended that the deere.
should be modified SO as to give each
of said defendants and specify therein
the amount cf water needed to irrigate
'-is lands. But in each of the deeds
conveying said lands an allowance Of
1850 cubic feet of water per acre was
made. and, as said OF appellants rights
On the former appeal. "the extent Of
that estate is measured by and is suf-
ficiently definite in the deeds OF DUR
chase. as definite as any water right
and deed thereof can or need be. viz,
the perpetual use of the instrumental
tiles to the extent required to supply
appellants lands in amount and season
reasonably necessary. but limited by
Their deeds OF purchase" Greater cx-
actness is unnecessary.
The decree is affirmed.