Court Opinion

ID: 8021281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 02:25:48.750791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:36:40.075210
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[Submitted October 5, 1909. Decided October 11, 1909.]
[104 Pac. 281.]
MR. JUSTICE SMITH
delivered the opinion of the court.
After the decision on appeal in this case, May 14, 1909, counsel for the appellant filed a motion for a rehearing, calling the attention of the court, for the first time, to an Act of Congress dated March 3, 1891 (see section 2477, U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 1570), sections 18, 19, and 20 of which Act read as follows:
*122“See. 18. That the right of way through the public lands and reservations of the United States is hereby granted to any canal or ditch company formed for the purpose of irrigation and duly organized under the laws of any state or territory, which shall have filed, or may, hereafter file, with the secretary of the interior a copy of its articles of incorporation, and due proofs of its organization under the same, to the extent of the ground occupied by the w.ater of the reservoir and of the canal and its laterals, and fifty feet on each side of the marginal limits thereof; also the right to take, from the public lands adjacent to the line of the canal or ditch, material, earth, and stone necessary for the construction of such canal or ditch: Provided, that no such right of way shall be so located as to interfere with the proper occupation by the government of any such reservation, and all maps of location shall be subject to the approval of the department of the government having jurisdiction of such reservation, and the privilege herein granted shall not be construed to interfere with the control of water for irrigation and other purposes under authority of the respective states or territories.
“Sec. 19. That any canal or ditch company, desiring to secure the benefits of this Act shall, within twelve months after the location of ten miles of its canal, if the same be upon surveyed lands, and if upon unsurveyed lands, within twelve months after the survey thereof by the United States, file with the register of the land office for the district where such land is located a map of its canal or ditch and reservoir; and upon the approval thereof by the secretary of the interior the same shall be noted upon the plats in said office, and thereafter all such lands over which such rights of way shall pass shall be disposed of subject to such right of way. "Whenever any person or corporation, in the construction of any canal, ditch, or reservoir, injures or damages the possession of any settler on the public domain, the party committing such injury or damage shall be liable to the party injured for such injury or damage.
“Sec. 20. That the provisions of this Act shall apply to all canals, ditches, or reservoirs, heretofore or hereafter constructed, *123whether constructed by corporations, individuals, or association of individuals, on the filing of the certificates and maps herein provided for. If such ditch, canal, or reservoir, has been or shall be constructed by an individual or association of individuals, it shall be sufficient for such individual or association of individuals to file with the secretary of the interior, and with the register of the land office where said land is located, a map of the line of such canal, ditch, or reservoir, as in case of a corporation, with the name of the individual owner or owners thereof, together with the articles of association, if any there be. Plats heretofore filed shall have the benefits of this Act from the date of their filing, as though filed under it: Provided, that if any section of said canal, or ditch, shall not be completed within five years after the location of said section, the rights herein granted shall be forfeited as to any uncompleted section of said canal, ditch, or reservoir, to the extent that the same is not completed at the date of the forfeiture.”
A rehearing was granted, and the cause has been reargued. The contention of the appellant now is that, having failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1891, the respondent and its predecessors acquired no right of way for their ditch across the land in question, for the reason that, before water was actually conveyed through the ditch, the homestead rights of appellant had attached. The respondent argues (1) that the Act of 1891 has no reference to small enterprises like the construction of its ditch, which is only seven miles long; and (2) that a failure to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1891 cannot be taken advantage of by a private person, but is a matter which concerns the federal government alone. A history of the causes which impelled the passage by the Congress of the Act of 1891 would doubtless throw considerable light upon the question- of the proper construction to be placed upon that piece of legislation, but we do not deem it necessary to make the investigation. We are still of opinion that section 2339, U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, granted a right of way for the construction of ditches across the public domain, and that the respondent’s *124rights, acquired by virtue thereof, were not forfeited by a failure to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1891.
We, therefore, adhere to our original decision.
Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Holloway, concur.