Case Name: J. W. BROWN, Respondent, v. L. A ASHLEY, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1878-01
Citations: 13 Nev. 251
Docket Number: No. 874
Parties: J. W. BROWN, Respondent, v. L. A ASHLEY, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
[No. 874.]
J. W. BROWN, Respondent, v. L. A ASHLEY, Appellant.
Diversion of Water — Form of Judgment — Costs.—In actions for the wrongful diversion of water the court is authorized to enter a decree in favor of plaintiff for the water, and to tax the costs of the action against the defendant, irrespective of the amount of the judgment for damages.
Appeal from the District Court Fourth Judicial District, Humboldt County.
This was an action brought by plaintiff against the defendant, for the alleged wrongful conversion of water. The complaint is in the usual form, and prays judgment for damages; a decree that plaintiff is entitled to the water; that defendant be enjoined from diverting it; for costs and for general relief. The defendant filed an answer denying the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, asserted ownership in himself, and asked for judgment for his costs. The jury found a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at one hundred and fifty dollars.
Upon this verdict, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, and plaintiff decreed to be the owner of the land and water rights mentioned in the complaint; that he is entitled to have the water of the stream therein designated unobstructed except that defendant might use such portion of said water as might be' necessary for domestic purposes but not for irrigation, and that plaintiff recover his costs taxed at one hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifteen cents.
M. 8. Bonnifield and Wells & Stewart, for Appellant.
Grass & Harding, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellant claims that the only judgment authorized by the pleadings ivas a judgment for damages, and that the judgment being for less than three hundred dollars, the court erred in taking the costs against appellant.
The pleadings in our opinion fully authorize the judgment as entered. In actions of this chai'acter, for the wrongful diversion of water, it is the usual and proper practice for the courts, to tax the costs against the party who is in the wrong irrespective of the amount of damages recovered, and such action is fully authorized by the provisions of the practice act of this state. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.