Case Name: In Re WATERS OF CHEWAUCAN RIVER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1918-10-08
Citations: 89 Or. 659
Docket Number: 
Parties: In Re WATERS OF CHEWAUCAN RIVER.
Judges: Mr. Justice Bean concurs in the result.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 659–690

Head Matter:
Motions to dismiss appeals allowed March 5,
argued on rehearing of motion to dismiss appeals July 17,
appeals dismissed October 8, 1918.
In Re WATERS OF CHEWAUCAN RIVER.
(171 Pac. 402; 175 Pac. 421.)
Appeal and Error — Parties—Intervention, on Appeal.
1. The Supreme Court is a court of appellate jurisdiction only, and cannot admit interveners who were strangers to the proceeding below, as that would be an exercise of original jurisdiction.
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Adverse Parties.
2. Anyone whose rights may bo injuriously affected by the modification of a decree is a party adverse to the one appealing, and should be served with notice of appeal.
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Parties—Dismissal.
3. A proceeding was commenced before the board of control to determine the relative rights of the users of the water of a river, and on notice numerous users appeared and filed their claims and notices of contest, and after hearings, etc., the record was filed in the Circuit Court, and it entered a decree modifying the findings of the board, from the whole of which decree two of the parties appearing before the board and the Circuit Court separately appealed, but failed to serve notice of appeal upon all the parties appearing in the Circuit Court. Section 6650, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 161, provides that in such proceedings appeals from the decree may be taken to the Supreme Court the same as in other eases in equity, except that notice of appeal must be served and filed within 60 days from the entry of the decree, and Section 556 provides that upon an appeal from a decree the suit shall be tried upon the transcript and accompanying evidence. Held that, as the rights of all the parties were put in issue by the appeals, the failure to give notice of appeal to all who were parties below deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction of the subject matter.
Appeal and Error — Appellate Jurisdiction — Notice of Appeal.
4. To give the Supreme Court jurisdiction, notice of appeal must be served upon every adverse party.
Appeal and Error — Right of Appeal — Conditions.
5. The privilege of appeal is not inherent or constitutional, but exists only by virtue of the statute, and if the statute is burdensome in respect to notices of appeal, expenses, etc., it is not the province of the court to amend it or to dispense with its requirements, especially in view of Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 617, granting the privilege of giving oral notice of appeal in open court at rendition of final decree.
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Contents.
6. A notice of appeal should contain enough in its terms to show that the party presenting the same is really a party to the record sought to be reversed or modified.
ON REHEARING.
Appeal and Error — Right of Appeal — Statute.
7. No appeal exists as a matter of right, but must be founded on statute.
Appeal and Error — Dismissal of Appeal — Policy of Court.
8. In view of the statute and rules of court which, where good faith is shown, provide for any amendment necessary to perfect appeal after notice of appeal and after Supreme Court has acquired jurisdiction, it is Supreme Court’s policy to sustain rather than to dismiss an appeal.
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court —Statute.
9. The appellate court has no legal discretion over the service of the notice of appeal, and to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction on the merits there must be á strict compliance with Section 550, L. 0. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 617, providing for the service of notice of appeal.
Appearance — “General Appearance.”
10. A “general appearance” must be express or implied from defendant’s taking of some step in a cause ‘beneficial to himself or detrimental to plaintiff other than one contesting the jurisdiction only, the purpose of which must bear some substantial relation to cause.
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — “Party”—Statute.
11. Where all sections of water law were complied with, and, under Section 14, a claimant filed his statement, he became an actor, and appeared and submitted his water right to Circuit Court’s jurisdiction for adjudication and to obtain his water right certificate, and was a party to proceeding entitled under Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 617, and in view of Section 6650 as amended by Laws of 1913, page 161, to notice of appeal.
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal- — “Adverse Party.”
12. Under Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 617, an “adverse party” entitled to notice of appeal is every party whose interest in relation to the judgment appealed from is in conflict with a modification or reversal sought by the appeal; every party interested in sustaining the judgment.
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — “Adverse Party” — Statute.
13. Every claimant who filed his statement with water board in a proceeding under water law, and whose water right was adjudicated by decree of Circuit Court, is bound by that decree, though not excepting in Circuit Court, and is an adverse party within Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 617, entitled to a notice of appeal.
From Lake: Bernard Daly, Judge.
■La Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.
A proceeding was commenced before tbe board of control, under Sections 6635 et seq., L. O. L., to determine the relative rights of the users of the water of Chewaucan River in Lake County. Responding to the notice of the board issued by virtue of Section 6636, ninety-nine users of the water filed their claims before the board. Some thirty notices of contest were also filed before that body and after the hearings and examinations provided for by the statute the record thus made up by the board was filed in the Circuit Court of Lake County. A date for hearing the same was fixed by tbe court and notice thereof was given to all tbe claimants who bad appeared in tbe proceeding. After bearing tbe parties and taking further evidence tbe Circuit Court modified tbe findings of tbe board and entered a decree accordingly. Prom this decree and tbe whole thereof tbe Northwest Townsite Company and tbe Portland Irrigation Company, parties appearing both before tbe board and the Circuit Court, have separately appealed. Neither of them served its notice of appeal upon tbe other appellant nor on all of tbe individuals who appeared before tbe board and tbe Circuit Court. In fact, there are about seventy claimants and parties to tbe record in tbe Circuit Court upon whom no such notice has been served by anyone,
Some of tbe parties upon whom that paper was served have moved to dismiss tbe appeal on tbe ground that it was not served upon tbe other parties to tbe record before tbe Circuit Court named in tbe motion. Another ground of dismissal specified by another motion is that tbe notice does not contain tbe names of tbe parties to tbe suit and that there is nothing in tbe paper itself to show that tbe one promulgating it was a party to tbe proceeding at any stage. Separate motions were made on behalf of certain individuals who were not made parties to tbe proceeding at any stage and applied to this court for tbe first time for leave to intervene and dismiss tbe appeal of tbe Portland Irrigation Company on tbe ground that they bad entered into contract with that concern to buy land included in a certain irrigation project and were induced to do so by sundry representations that ample water rights were appurtenant to tbe tracts which they had contracted to buy, but that said statements were untrue and amounted to fraud upon them. These matters appeared by affidavit filed in this court and the affiants move to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the prolongation of the litigation involved would defer their settlement with the company with which they had contracted. We also have a brief emanating from the office of the Attorney General and that of the state desert .land board, as amici curiae, resisting the motion to dismiss the appeals, contending that the award of water to the parties to this proceeding will materially interfere with proposed irrigation projects contemplated by the state authorities.
Appeals Dismissed.
Messrs. Wood, Montague, Hunt & Cookingham, for appellants, Northwest Townsite Company and Portland Irrigation Company.
Mr. Alfred E. Reames, for W. T. Miller et al.
Mr. W. Lair Thompson, for Fred T. Elsey et al. and Chewaucan Land & Cattle Company.
Mr. Conrad P. Olsen, for J. T. Wenstrom et al.
Mr. George M. Brown, Attorney General, and Mr. Percy A. Cupper, Assistant Secretary State Desert Land Board, Amici Curiae.

Opinion:
BURNETT, J. —
The motion of the interveners, who attack the Northwest Townsite Company and the Portland Irrigation Company for the first time in this court, in an effort to, remove their appeals as an obstacle to their settlement with the latter concern, is not entitled to consideration here. This court is one of appellate jurisdiction only. It cannot admit interveners, as that would he an exercise of original jurisdiction. If the parties concerned in this motion had desired to participate in the litigation it was their duty to apply at least to the Circuit Court, if not to the water hoard. Acting under Section 38, L. O. L., and to preserve the matter involved in the appeal over which it has jurisdiction, this court has in some instances substituted parties when the suit or action would otherwise abate by the death or other disability of a party or by transfer of some interest therein if the cause of action survived, but that is not like the case before us, where strangers intrude upon the litigation, not seeking to be substituted for any party thereto, but making a new attack upon one of the litigants.
The statement of the principle that this court is one of appellate jurisdiction only and that to admit strangers to participate in litigation here would be the exercise of original jurisdiction is sufficient to dismiss the motion of such parties from further consideration.
The chief question to be decided is whether the failure to serve notice of appeal upon all the parties who appeared in the Circuit Court prevents the jurisdiction of this court attaching to the subject matter. It appears to be conceded by all parties that anyone whose rights may be injuriously affected by a modification of the decree is a party adverse to the one appealing and should be served with notice.
It is said in Section 6650, L. O. L., as amended by the act of February 21,1913, Laws of 1913, Chapter 97, treating of this sort of procedure that:
"Appeals may be taken to the Supreme Court upon such decrees in the same manner and with the same effect as in other cases in equity, except that notice of appeal must be served and filed within sixty days from the entry of the decree."
It is also said in Section 556, L. O. L., that:
"Upon an appeal from a decree given in any conrt the suit shall be tried anew upon the transcript and evidence accompanying it."
We note, also, that the appeal in each instance here is from the decree and the whole thereof, so that the entire determination of the Circuit Court is called in question. In other words, the adjustment of the relative rights of all the parties concerned before the trial court respecting the waters of the Chewaucan River is put at stake by the appeals. This necessarily involves the examination of the entire question and all the issues of the proceeding. The whole affair is subjected to readjustment, if we have jurisdiction of the same. The two parties appealing are dissatisfied with. the settlement in the Circuit Court. They want more water or more favorable terms for the use of what they have. If successful, this means that the award to other parties will be disturbed in some measure. The enterprise of the Portland Irrigation Company, for instance, must be within irrigation limits of the stream. We will suppose that this appellant is successful in securing ~a modification of the decree, so that it will acquire more water. If such is the result it will pro tanto lessen the amount which will flow down the stream and be open to future appropriation, not only to those parties who are served with notice, but also by those who are not served and who already have or may hereafter obtain access to the stream. The fact that appropriations for certain tracts of land, as related to all others involved, have been established by the decree does not deprive their owners of the right to mate additional appropriations in the future, if water is there to be appropriated and can be applied to beneficial uses. This is true of both those below and those above any existing appropriator. Those below him are entitled to the water in excess of his appropriation; those above him are entitled, of course, to their original rights and also to appropriate water otherwise unappropriated, and not necessary to fill his quota.
If the presence of these parties was necessary for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, it is none the less essential to the exercise of the limited appellate authority of this court. The reason is that the very essence of any decree in such litigation is the determination of the relative rights of the parties. This element of each right being relative to all others persists from the beginning to the end of such litigation, so that the plaint of one party must affect all others in a greater or less degree.
The uses to which water may be put are manifold and variable and fluctuate as much as the rise and fall of the stream itself, so that it is important at every stage of the proceeding for the court to have before it all whose rights attach to the thing submitted to the court for adjustment. This quality of variability was so apparent to the legislative power that it has provided in Section 6654, L. O. L., as follows:
"Within six months from the date of the decree of the Circuit Court determining the rights upon any stream, or if appealed within six months from the decision of the Supreme Court, the board of control, or any party interested, may apply to the Circuit Court for a rehearing upon grounds to be stated in the application. Thereupon, if in the discretion of the court it shall appear that there are good grounds for the rehearing, the Circuit Court, or judge thereof, shall make an order fixing a time and place when snch application shall be heard."
This, however, does not alter the rule long established in respect to proceedings in this court, that in order to give it jurisdiction to act, the notice of appeal must be served upon every adverse party. It is contended that this involves such a great expense, owing to the large number of parties, that it practically destroys the right to appeal. This privilege, however, is not inherent nor constitutional. It exists only by virtue of the statute and if the application of the enactment is burdensome it is not the province of the courts to amend the same or to dispense with its requirements. The remedy must be found in the legislative branch of the government. Moreover, the Code, in Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Chapter 319, Laws of 1913, grants the privilege of giving oral notice of appeal in open court at the rendition of final decree which certainly cannot be extraordinarily expensive.
Respecting the contents of the notice of appeal, it would seem that such a document should contain enough in its terms to show that the party presenting the same is really a party to the record sought to be reversed or modified. Otherwise, any stranger could intrude upon a proceeding without having any interest whatever in the same. It would more widely open the door to those who come before the court under the designation of amid curiae, when in reality they are bitter partisans or "Greeks bearing gifts." So far as the terms of the notices before us are concerned, they might have been given by the veriest strangers. It is sufficient for the purposes of this decision, however, to rest it upon the principle that the court has not ac quired jurisdiction because many of the adverse parties have not been served with notice of appeal.
The appeals must be dismissed.
Appeals Dismissed.
Mr. Justice Bean concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice McCamant and Mr. Justice Benson took no part in the consideration of this case.