Weaver v. Eureka Lake Co.

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1860Published

Before: Cope

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the jury's verdict regarding priority of water appropriation and diligence was supported by evidence, and that the defendants could not justify interfering with the plaintiffs' water rights by claiming the superior utility of their own reservoir dams.

Issues

Whether the jury's verdict regarding the priority of water rights and the diligence of the plaintiffs' appropriation was supported by the evidence.
Whether the defendants were legally justified in damming lakes and diverting water to the detriment of the plaintiffs' prior rights based on the utility of the reservoirs.
Whether the defendants' claim to water rights based on prior notices was valid.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a comparison of the value of conflicting rights, would be a novel mode of determining their legal superiority.”

“The notices of the plaintiffs claiming the same water, were as valid and effectual as the notices of these parties could have been, and the proof is that they were first posted.”

“We are aware of no principle of law upon which such a position can be maintained.”

Synopsis

Whether plaintiffs, who had posted notices claiming the water of a certain river, and stating their intention to construct a ditch or flume, and appropriate the water for mining purposes, began their surveys, etc., and prosecuted their work to completion with due diligence, as against parties attempting subsequently to appropriate the water, is a question for the jury, and their verdict, on conflicting testimony, will be conclusive.

Suit by plaintiffs as prior appropriators of the water of Middle Tuba river, for damming up and diverting the water of three lakes situated one above the other, opening into each other, and discharging their water into the Middle Tuba river through the same channel, which is about a mile long, and is called “lake stream.” The quantity of water varies with the seasons. Sometimes the stream is a torrent, and sometimes it is almost or quite dry. Defendants, to create a supply for their ditch during the summer, erected a dam at the outlet of each lake, converting it into a sort of reservoir, from which the water was drawn as needed, contending that the circumstances justified the erection of the dams, and that the great value of the lakes as reservoirs justified the injuries resulting to plaintiffs. Held, that there is no law for such position, that if the injuries to plaintiffs were trivial, they would be dammm absque injuria, but that the legal superiority of conflicting rights cannot be determined by a comparison of their value.

To render valid a claim of water by appropriation, the claim must be for some useful or beneficial purpose, or in contemplation of a future appropriation for such purpose by the parties claiming it. A claim for mere speculation will not answer.

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

This is an action to recover damages for damming up and diverting the water of certain lakes in Nevada county. The complaint is in the usual form in such cases, alleging a right by appropriation in the plaintiffs, and an improper interference with that right by the defendants. The averments of the complaint are controverted by the answer, and a prior and superior right asserted in the defendants. It can hardly be expected that we will undertake the task of a critical examination of the testimony for the purpose of determining whether, upon the weight of the evidence, the verdict was right or wrong. We have so frequently declared the rule upon this subject, it is unnecessary to repeat it again. It is contended, however, that there was no conflict of testimony upon the question of the priority of the rights of the parties, and that upon this point the verdict is entirely unsupported by evidence. If this be true, it, of course, disposes of the case.

Both parties claim the water for mining purposes, and the right of each is based upon the construction of a ditch by means of which it is alleged that the appropriation was effected. It was shown that the plaintiffs, sometime in June, 1853, posted certain notices claiming the water of the Middle Tuba river and its tributaries, and stating their intention to construct a ditch, or flume, and appropriate the same for the purposes mentioned. It was further shown that, in the following month, they commenced their surveys on the contemplated line of the ditch, and that these surveys were, in due course of time, prosecuted to completion, and followed up by the actual construction of the work. It is claimed that the plaintiffs did not prosecute their enterprise with sufficient diligence, and that their rights do not, therefore, date by rela[274]tion from the commencement of their operations in 1853; but the question of diligence was necessarily passed upon by the jury, and their verdict is conclusive. It is not pretended that the defendants' did any act towards the construction of their ditch until the summer of-1854, but evidence was introduced for the purpose of connecting them with a right to the water of the lakes in question, claimed by other parties, who had put up notices of their appropriation early in July, 1853. Irrespective of any question as to the validity of this claim, we think the conclusion of the jury fully justified by, and in strict conformity with, the evidence. The notices of the plaintiffs claiming the same water, were as valid and effectual as the notices of these parties could have been, and the proof is that they were first posted.

Weaver v. Eureka Lake Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief