Case Name: CANTRALL v. STERLING MINING CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1912-03-19
Citations: 61 Or. 516
Docket Number: 
Parties: CANTRALL v. STERLING MINING CO.
Judges: Mr. Justice Burnett delivered the opinion of the court.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 516–527

Head Matter:
Argued February 21,
decided March 19,
rehearing denied May 14, 1912.
CANTRALL v. STERLING MINING CO.
[122 Pac. 42.]
Appeal and Error — Transcript—Time of Filing — “Justification.”
1. Where exception was taken to the sureties on appeal, and, hy consent, the justification was postponed from time to time and finally waived by respondents, the 30 days within which the transcript must be filed under Section 554, subd. 2, L. O. L., to prevent the appeal from being deemed abandoned began to run from the date of waiver of justification, which was equivalent to a “justification,” within Section 550, subd. 4, providing that from the expiration of the five days allowed to except to the sureties, or from the justification thereof, if excepted to, the appeal shall he deemed perfected, so that the transcript was filed in time, where filed pursuant to an order made during the 30 days so computed, extending the time for filing as authorized hy Section 554, subd. 2.
Vendor and Purchaser — Bona Fide Purchasers — Records.
2. One purchasing land and water rights, after the owner had relinquished certain water rights appurtenant thereto by a duly recorded deed, took no better title to the water rights than the owner had after the relinquishment.
Waters — Prescriptive Rights — Adverse Character of Claim.
3. To entitle the parties or privies to an agreement relinquishing and apportioning water rights to afterwards claim such rights hy adverse user, they must have made some affirmative assertion of ownership under a claim. of right, open, notorious,, and exclusive in character, which amounted to such an invasion of the owners’ title as would give them a cause of action.
Waters — Irrigation Rights — -Action to Restrain Interference— Evidence.
4. In a suit to enjoin interference with water rights, under a relinquishment of all rights in the waters of a stream, except an amount sufficient to irrigate plaintiff’s land, evidence held to show that 500 inches, in continuous use for a week at a time, would he sufficient to irrigate 100 acres of plaintiff’s land.
Waters — Appropriation-—Amount Necessary.
5. One is entitled to use water only in such quantities and at such times as may he reasonably necessary for some useful purpose, either existing or fairly contemplated in the future, and cannot waste water even for a useful purpose.
Waters — Reservations—Mode of Use.
6. Water may be used alternately by persons entitled to given quantities of the waters of a stream by 1 virtue of a reservation in a grant of waterrights.
Waters — Relinquishment—Construction of Deed.
7. An owner of land relinquished to certain persons any right he might have to the waters of a creek, excepting and reserving to himself so much of the water as shall he necessary for irrigating purposes at any time of the year on grantor’s land, and agreed for himself not to prevent grantees from using all of the waters, excepting the reservations. Held, that the grantees were only bound to permit a sufficient amount of water to flow down the creek past their intake for irrigating grantor’s land, and were not responsible to grantor or his assigns if it was used by others.
From Jackson: H. K. Hanna, Judge.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
Mr. Justice Burnett
delivered the opinion of the court.
At the hearing a motion was presented, on behalf of plaintiffs, without argument, to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the transcript had not been filed within 30 days after the appeal was perfected. This was predicated upon the assumption that the 30 days began to run five days after service of the undertaking on appeal. This would be true if nó exception to the surety on the undertaking had been filed within the five days. The appellant however, having suggested a diminution of the record, the clerk of the circuit court forwarded additional matter that should have been included in the transcript in the first instance, whereby it appears that, exception to the surety was filed. By consent of parties, the justification, of which timely notice had been given, was postponed from time to time, and finally was waived by plaintiffs. The 30 days began to run from the day of this waiver, as that was tantamount to a justification, within the meaning of Section 550, subd. 4, L. O. L. During the 30-day period thus computed, the circuit judge made an order extending the time in which to file the transcript, and it was seasonably filed under the sanction of that order, as contemplated by Section 554, subd. 2, L. O. L.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Smith & Beckwith, with an oral argument by Mr. Robert G. Smith.
For respondents there was a brief with oral arguments by Mr. Gus Newbury and Mr. William I. Vawter.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.
This is a suit in equity by Andrew Cantrall and A. S. Kleinhammer for an injunction against the Sterling Mining Co., a corporation, to prevent an interference with certain water rights acquired by appropriation by plaintiffs' grantors in the water of Little Applegate Creek, in Jackson County, Oregon. From a decree in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Modified,
Mr. Justice Burnett delivered the opinion of the court.