San Bernardino National Bank v. Jones

LANGDON, J.

This action was brought by plaintiffs to quiet title to their rights in a tunnel and pipe-line conveying water therefrom and situated on the lands of defendants, and to the easement therefor and to prevent the destruction of the said pipe-line by defendants.

■ It appears, without dispute, that the predecessors of plaintiffs acquired the water rights in question by appropriation while the land now owned by defendants was government land. [1] When patent issued it contained the usual provision: “Subject to any vested or accruing water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing or other purposes and rights to ditches or reservoirs used in connection with such water rights, as may be recognized by the local customs, laws

[615]

and decisions of courts, etc. ...” This patent was duly recorded and whatever notice is given by the reservation contained therein" is binding upon the defendants here, as the patent is in their chain of title.

The physical facts at the time defendants purchased the property and took possession thereof appear from the findings of the trial court to be: “Plaintiffs’ predecessor entered in and upon lot 9 (now defendants’ property) and constructed a tunnel at a spring thereon and thereby developed water in said tunnel and conveyed said water through a pipe line from said spring and tunnel to and across said lots 9 and 8 to the lands of plaintiffs.” A concrete bulkhead was constructed in the mouth of the tunnel by one of plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest in 1906, causing water to accumulate in a small reservoir, and an underground pipe, at some places three-quarters of an inch and at other places an inch in diameter, extended from the reservoir in a general southwesterly direction about three hundred feet to a house on lot 8 and thence in the same general direction approximately fifteen hundred feet to a house on the plaintiffs’ land.

The trial court found that the defendants acquired their property in 1923 with notice and knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man on inquiry as to the existence of rights, claims and ownerships of plaintiffs in and to the tunnel situated on said lot 9 and the water flowing therein, and that by prosecuting such inquiry, said defendants would have learned of the existence of such rights. Upon such findings, judgment was entered for plaintiffs, from which the defendants appeal.