Court Opinion

ID: 9547952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:55:07.488683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:17.863539
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*209BRAND, J.
The plaintiffs have filed a petition for rehearing. The grounds specified in the brief supporting the petition are as follows:
“(1) The Opinion errs in holding that Plaintiffs’ case against the Watermaster was based solely upon adverse use;
“(2) The Opinion errs in failing to note that in two important respects the Watermaster is failing to administer the waters in accordance with the provisions of the 1916 Decree in the Hill case and for that reason the Opinion errs in its basic conclusion that ORS 540.740 forbids the issuance of an injunction against him;
“(3) The Opinion is in error in expressing doubt that the Plaintiffs may lawfully assert their alleged prescriptive rights in any case; and
“(4) The Opinion errs in reversing the Circuit Court and dismissing the suit.”
The contention that plaintiffs were entitled to an • injunction against the Watermaster because he was “failing to administer the waters in accordance with the provisions of the 1916 decree” is obviously an afterthought, and now comes too late.
The complaint contains no mention of the 1916 decree and asserts no claim based upon anything except adverse possession. The assertion that the defendant threatens to continue to deprive plaintiffs of the use of the waters of Trout Creek of necessity applies to an alleged deprivation of the only rights which the plaintiffs claim to possess, namely, rights acquired by adverse possession.
The defendant Watermaster in his answer admits that plaintiffs have diverted water pursuant to the decree of February 23, 1916. He admits that he will continue to administer the waters of Trout Creek in *210accordance with the decree. He alleges that the water rights granted by the decree and by Certificate No. 11459 and Permit No. 19141 are the only water rights possessed by plaintiffs and that he has administered the waters in accordance with the decree and permits.
It is further alleged by the Watermaster that the Calderwoods refused to comply with the instructions of the defendant “which instructions were issued in conformance with the aforesaid decree.” This allegation is not denied by the plaintiffs and is therefore admitted. The plaintiffs in their reply “deny that they irrigated the same pursuant to said Decree or in accordance with the terms thereof” and allege that they rely on adverse use.
In spite of the condition of the pleadings as above indicated, plaintiffs now claim that they are entitled under the pleadings to an injunction against the Water-master because in their reply they denied the allegation of the Watermaster that he has administered the waters in accordance with the decree of February 23, 1916. Neither pleadings nor briefs authorize them to make such a contention at this time. In neither complaint nor reply is there a single allegation as to any failure by the Watermaster to enforce any specific provision of the 1916 decree which is favorable to the plaintiffs. Nor is there any allegation that defendant threatens to deprive plaintiffs of the benefits of the 1916 decree in the future. The parties have definitely committed themselves to trial on the issue of adverse use and possession and we decided the case on that issue.
It need scarcely be said that we recognize the duty of the Watermaster to enforce the provisions of the 1916 decree, including the provisions thereof which are favorable to the plaintiffs, as well as those favor*211able to the other water users. We find no allegation even tending to show any intention to fail in the performance of that duty.
If in the future the defendant shall fail to give to the plaintiffs the rights to which they are entitled under the decree and the permits, plaintiffs may invoke the powers of equity to protect such rights, namely, those rights which they solemnly declare are not the basis of their pending claim. A reading of the briefs will demonstrate that the parties based their claims on the issue which we have decided.
We have considered the contentions in the petition for rehearing and find them without merif. The petition is denied.