Miller v. Imperial Water Co. No. 8

California Supreme Court Jul 2, 1909 No. L.A. No. 2311.Published

Before: Angellotti

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel a mutual water company to provide water to a stockholder where the right to water is an inseparable adjunct of membership and no other adequate remedy exists. The term 'owned' in the corporate articles is construed to include the possessory interest of a settler on unsurveyed public land.

Issues

Whether mandamus lies to enforce a stockholder's right to receive water from a mutual water company.
Whether a settler on unsurveyed public land qualifies as an 'owner' under the corporation's articles of incorporation.

Disposition. Demurrer overruled; remanded with leave to answer.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is one of the well-recognized offices of the remedy by mandamus to enforce the plain rights of stockholders or members of corporations in the absence of any other adequate remedy”

“the stockholder’s right to have water furnished on his land is not based on any special contract entered into by him with the corporation, but is an inseparable adjunct of his membership”

“the word “owned” as used in the articles of incorporation means no more than the word “held” or the word “occupied” would have meant.”

Synopsis

Mandamus to Enforce Corporate Eights.—The writ of mandamus Bes to enforce the plain rights of stockholders or members of corporations, in the absence of any other adequate remedy.

Id.—Mutual Water Company—Right to Use of Water on Land—• Enforcement of Bight by Stockholder.—A stockholder in a mutual water company, organized for the purpose of securing a supply of water and distributing the same proportionately among its stockholders for use upon lands owned by them within certain defined boundaries, may maintain a proceeding in mandamus to compel the corporation to furnish him with the water to which he is entitled by reason of his membership in the corporation, for use in irrigating lands owned by him within such boundaries, which he had prepared for cultivation, and on which he had planted a crop which was ready for irrigation, and which would soon die if not irrigated. In such a case, there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Id.—Owner of Land—Occupant of Unsurveyed Public Lands.—A stockholder in the corporation, who occupies unsurveyed public lands of the United States within such defined boundaries, which he has entered with intent to procure the government title, will be deemed to be the owner of such lands, within the meaning and intent of the purposes for which the corporation was organized, when the status of all other lands within the district is the same.

[28]

ANGELLOTTI, J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate originally made to the district court of appeal for the second district. That court sustained a demurrer to the petition and denied the writ upon the ground that the alleged right sought to he enforced rests wholly upon contract, and that

mandamus

will not lie to enforce contractual duties. The matter was ordered transferred to this court after decision by the district court of appeal.

As stated in the opinion of the district court of appeal:—

“The petition alleges that respondent is a corporation organized for the purpose of securing a supply of water for irrigation, domestic and other purposes from a named source, and to distribute the same at cost among its stockholders for use upon lands owned by them within certain defined boundaries. That in carrying out such purpose respondent acquired a perpetual right to a certain quantity of water sufficient to furnish four acre-feet of water per annum for each outstanding share Of the capital stock of respondent, and by the same contract provided for the construction of canals and ditches through which to deliver said water for irrigation purposes to the lands of its stockholders throughout the territory described, and that such canals and ditches pass through the lands of petitioner. That since the completion of these canals and ditches the other stockholders of respondent have been accustomed to receive and do receive from it water for the irrigation of any and all lands occupied by them within the said territory.

“That petitioner occupies a tract of land situate . . . within the exterior boundaries described, the same being unsurveyed public lands belonging to the United States and which land petitioner has entered with intent to procure government title thereto (describing the land), has prepared the land for cultivation, planted a crop thereon, and the same is ready for irrigation and if not irrigated speedily the crop will perish and be lost. That he is the owner of 320 shares of stock of the respondent corporation which entitle him to water to irrigate 320 acres of land; has demanded said water, has offered to pay all proper charges therefor and is now ready and willing to pay the same, and that he is not receiving any water by reason of his ownership of said stock elsewhere, but that respondent refuses to deliver him any water. He asks

Miller v. Imperial Water Co. No. 8

AI Brief

Synopsis

ANGELLOTTI, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief