Case Name: Fornwald et al. v. Nelson et al.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1908-01
Citations: 42 Colo. 178
Docket Number: No. 5293; No. 2928 C. A.
Parties: Fornwald et al. v. Nelson et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
[No. 5293.]
[No. 2928 C. A.]
Fornwald et al. v. Nelson et al.
Former Opinion Followed.
The judgment in this case is affirmed in accordance with Alamosa Creek Canal Co. v. Nelson, ante, p. 140.
Appeal from the District Court of Conejos County. Hon. Charles C. Holbrook, Judge.
Action by Piadad Nelson, owner of the Hend Overflow; John Harvey, Jr.; The La Jara Creamery & Live Stock Association; Silas E. Newcomb, owner' of the Arroya Ditch; The Union Ditch Company (a corporation) owner of the Union Ditch; John Harvey, owner of the North Alamosa Ditch; William H. Adams and Alva Adams, owners of the Overflow Ditch; John W. Flintham, David F. Plowe and A. M. Benge, owners of the Flintham Ditch; The Morgan Ditch Company (a corporation) owner of the Morganville Ditch; George Hamilton, owner of the Plano Vista Ditch; John Lindon, Antone Olson, Claus Arnell and Charles J. Baxstrom, owners of the Scandinavian Ditch; A. Sherwin, John Mount, Jos eph Pursley, Frank Enssell and William Neff, owners of the Miller Ditch; who sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Peter Fornwald, Henry Sherer, James Bond and George Slovett, Water Commissioners of Water District No. 21 of the State of Colorado. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Mr. Jesse Stephenson, for appellants.
Mr. Ira J. Bloomfield, for appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Campbell
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an action by plaintiffs (appellees here), appropriators and users of water for irrigation from the-Alamosa river in water district No. 21 in this state, against defendants (appellants), appropriators from the same stream, to restrain the latter from diverting and using water from such stream to the injury of plaintiffs, who, as against defendants, are said to be prior appropriators. The judgment was for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Precisely the same questions of law, and largely the same questions of fact, are involved in this case as in Alamosa Creek Canal Co. v. Nelson, the opinion in which is published ante, p. 140; indeed, some of the evidence is exactly the same in both cases. All these questions, we think, were correctly decided by the trial court, and upon the authority of the foregoing decision the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Chief Justice Steele and Mr. Justice Gabbert concur.