Case Name: CENTRAL OREGON IRR. CO. v. WHITED
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1914-07-21
Citations: 76 Or. 255
Docket Number: 
Parties: CENTRAL OREGON IRR. CO. v. WHITED.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Harris and Mr. Justice Benson concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 255–271

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied July 21, 1914.
Argued on the merits February 9,
reversed March 2,
rehearing denied May 25, 1915.
CENTRAL OREGON IRR. CO. v. WHITED.
(142 Pac. 779; 146 Pac. 815.)
Appeal and Error—Record—Filing Transcript:
1. Under Section 554, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 618, providing that if a cause is one on appeal to the Supreme Court which the- law requires to be submitted at Pendleton, the transcript and abstract shall be filed with the deputy clerk of the court at Pendleton, and Sections 896-898, L. 0. L., providing that the clerk of the Supreme Court shall, with the consent of the court, appoint a deputy at Salem and one at Pendleton, and that the clerk shall attend each session.at Pendleton unless excused by the court, the filing of the transcript with the clerk instead of the deputy clerk at Pendleton in a cause to be heard at Pendleton, is sufficient to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
ON THE MERITS.
Injunction- — Continuing Trespass.
2. Where a trespass is continued and made up of successive acts, and the threat and intention of continuing are manifest, equity will enjoin it on the ground that each separate trespass forms a separate cause of action and that it would be idle to require the plaintiff to bring a distinct action for eaeh trespass.
[As to injunctions against trespasses on real estate, see note in 99 Am. St. Rep. 731.]
Waters and Watercourses — Reclamation and Irrigation — Contracts— Acreage of Irrigable Lands.
3. The Carey Act (Act Aug. 18, 1894, c. 301, 28 Stat. 378 [H. S. Comp. Stats. 1913, § 4686]), as amended, provides that, when a sufficient supply of water is actually furnished in a substantial ditch to reclaim a particular tract, patent shall issue therefor, and the rules of the Secretary of the Interior require that all irrigable land in each legal subdivision is to be thoroughly irrigated and reclaimed by the contract with the state and the rules made pursuant thereto. Under Section 4 of the Federal act and the acts supplementary thereto, and Aet of February 24, 1909 (Laws 1909, p. 377), accepting it, the state, by its land board, contracted with plaintiff’s predecessor to reclaim and irrigate land in accordance with plans filed with the state and made a part of the contract, which, provided that the land should be thereafter examined, estimated and reported as a basis of reclamation liens, and plaintiff prepared a map listing the number of irrigable acres on eaeh subdivision, the examination and report of which was approved by the state land board and furnished to the Secretary of the Interior for patent. Two tracts, in eaeh of whieh the report showed 15 irrigable aeres, though a more accurate subsequent topographical survey showed 25 and 26 acres, were released from lien with reference to the lands, etc., of the state’s contract, and subject to the annual irrigation charge of one dollar per acre as fixed therein, by contract providing that plaintiff would supply water sufficient to irrigate each tract in the list for patent. Held, that defendant was entitled to water for only 30 aeres, and that Ms breaking of plaintiff’s gates to take more than sufficient therefor would be enjoined.
Costs on Appeal — Losing Party.
4. In a suit against defendant to enjoin him from breaking plaintiff’s water-gates and taking more water than he was entitled to, where defendant’s interest was but a small part of the matter involved, it would be inequitable for defendant suffering an adverse ■judgment to bear the costs.
From Crook: "William L. Bradshaw, Judge.
In Banc. Statement Per Curiam.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the transcript was not filed at Pendleton by the deputy clerk. The appeal is from Crook County, and was filed by tbe clerk of tbis court onwthe 1st day of May, 1914, being witbin 30 days after tbe appeal was perfected.
Motion Denied.
For the motion, Mr. Kirk Whited, respondent, appeared in person.
Contra, Mr. Jesse Stearns and Mr. F. Ewing Martin.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Section 554, L. O. L., as amended in 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 618), provides:
"Upon tbe appeal being perfected tbe appellant shall, witbin thirty days thereafter, file with tbe clerk of the appellate court a transcript if tbe cause is one on appeal to tbe Supreme Court, which it is provided by law or tbe rules of tbe court shall be submitted at Pendleton, tbe transcript and abstract shall be filed witbin tbe time and in tbe manner herein provided with tbe deputy clerk of tbe court at Pendleton," etc.
By tbe law in effect at tbe time tbis act was passed appeals from Wasco, Crook and Sherman Counties, unless otherwise stipulated by tbe parties, were directed to be beard at tbe next succeeding term of said court, and tbe transcript was directed to be forwarded to tbe clerk there after tbe appeal was perfected. So tbis was a case to be beard at Pendleton. Sections 896, 897, 898, L. O. L., provide that tbe clerk shall, with tbe consent of tbe court, appoint a deputy at Salem and one at Pendleton, and that tbe clerk shall attend each session of tbe court at Pendleton, unless excused by tbe court. We conclude that tbe legislature did not intend to create tbe deputy clerk at Pen dleton an independent officer, or to give him powers denied his principal; neither can we believe there is any substantial difference in the words of the old law, that the transcript shall be forwarded to the clerk at Pendleton, and the words of the new law, that it shall be filed with the clerk at Pendleton. Therefore, we think the decision in Pringle Falls Power Co. v. Patterson, 65 Or. 474 (128 Pac. 820, 132 Pac. 527), is decisive of the motion. In that case we held, when an appellant, within the time limited gives the required notice of appeal, and files a transcript thereon with the clerk of the court, he has complied with the requirements of the statute, whether the copy of that record is left with that officer either at Salem or Pendleton, for when the transcript has been filed, jurisdiction of the cause has been secured, and our clerk can send the copy of the record to the proper place for trial, or the court can make an order to that effect.
Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean.
This is a suit by the Central Oregon Irrigation Company, a corporation, against Kirk "Whited, to restrain a threatened trespass, and involves the determination of the number of acres of land for which defendant is entitled to water for irrigation under a certain contract. The Circuit Court rendered a decree in favor of defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.
The motion is denied. Denied.