McIntyre v. Consolidated Water Co.

PLUMMER, J.

In this action the plaintiffs, number ing some sixty persons, are asking for declaratory relief for the construction of a contract, etc., under section 1060 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Prom the judgment entered in the action awarding the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs, the defendants appeal.

This case was before the Supreme Court upon an appeal from a judgment sustaining a general demurrer interposed by the defendants. The opinion reversing the judgment of the lower court is reported in 205 Cal. 231 [270 Pac. 444], to which reference is hereby made for a more complete statement of the facts than is necessary to be set forth herein. The case, as referred to, decided upon demurrer by the Supreme Court, had to do with the law involved in the action, and upon this appeal, an examination of the record shows that the findings of the trial court are in accordance with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. The findings are not attacked as being unsupported by the evidence.

The defendants upon this appeal urge: 1. That the contract of March 15, 1900, in so far as it affected waters dedicated to a public use, is invalid. 2. That the contract of March 15, 1900, was annulled in the manner therein provided. 3. That the judgment entered created a new contract, etc. 4. That the provisions of the contract were erroneously extended to persons not parties thereto.

The findings of the court show that on or about the fourteenth day of September, 1887, one Fred J. Smith and William Everett entered into a certain written agreement,

[129]

by the terms of which Smith agreed to sell and Everett agreed to purchase a certain quantity of water that should be produced by Smith on lot 32 of Loop and Meserve tract, Rancho San Jose, county of Los Angeles. Deeds were executed thereafter, conveying title to the water in pursuance of the contract or agreement just referred to. The water was to be delivered through pipes to certain lots in a subdivision belonging to Everett. These lots were subsequently conveyed to the plaintiffs, together with water rights apportioning to each purchaser a certain quantity of water. In pursuance of the agreement between Smith and Everett and the deeds of conveyance, Smith developed water on lot 32, which water, by means of pipes, was thereafter conveyed to the lots belonging to the ’plaintiffs in this action. Thereafter, lot 32 and the waters developed thereon, and to be developed thereon, were, by mesne conveyances, transferred to the defendant, Consolidated Water Company, and by the Consolidated Water Company to the city of Pomona. In all of the transfers a reservation was made of the water and water rights conveyed and belonging to the plaintiffs and their grantors in this action.