Smith v. Corbit

California Supreme Court Apr 28, 1897 No. L. A. No. 132Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's water rights were not paramount to the plaintiffs' rights, as the plaintiffs acquired a right to one-half of the stream's water through their grant and long-term usage, and both parties as riparian owners are entitled to a reasonable apportionment of the water.

Issues

Whether the defendant's water rights were paramount to the plaintiffs' rights based on the original land grant and subsequent usage.
Whether the defendant's change in the point of diversion affected the parties' respective water rights.
Whether the court below erred in failing to properly apportion the water between riparian owners.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It must be held, therefore, we think, that plaintiffs under their conveyances and long user acquired a right to take and use one-half of the water of the stream”

“The change, however, did not increase or diminish the share of the water which he was entitled to divert. He still had a right to only one-half of the water flowing in the stream”

Synopsis

Water Rights — Stream Appurtenant to Land — Division op Land-Grant by Implication — Equal User.— Where the owner of land through which a stream flows divides the land into two parts, and grants away one of them, the grantee takes by implication a right to the water necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the part granted; and where the parties have for many years each used one-half of the water of the stream, without interference, it must he held that the grantee and his successors in interest acquired a right to take and use one-half of the water of the stream; and the rights of the grantor are not paramount to the rights of the grantee.

Id. — Change of Place of Diversion — Quantity Unchanged. — The owner of a water right may change the place of diversion to a point higher up the stream, provided the rights of others are not injuriously affected thereby; but he does not, by such change, increase or diminish the share of the water that he is entitled to divert.

Id.—Riparian Rights—Domestic Use—Irrigation—Division of Use.— Riparian owners are entitled to have their natural wants supplied by using so much of the water as is necessary for strictly domestic purposes, and to furnish drink for man and beast, before any can be used for purposes of irrigation; and after their natural wants are supplied, each party is entitled to a reasonable use of the remaining water for irrigation; and where the interests of the parties will be conserved thereby, the court may apportion the flow of the water of the stream to the respective owners by periods of time, so that each may have the full flow during the designated period.

Belcher, C. This is a suit to determine a water right. The court below adjudged that the defendant’s right to take and use water out of the stream in controversy, “for all his uses on the land occupied by him,” was “ paramount, to the right of plaintiffs to use said water,” and from that judgment the plaintiffs appeal on the judgment-roll.

The findings are in substance as follows: On November 3, 1875, and for a long time prior thereto, one Mrs. Munoz was the owner and in possession of a tract of land on which a small stream of water arose, and flowed thence through the same in a well-defined channel; and during the whole period of her ownership she used the said water for her household purposes, for watering her live stock, and for irrigating the parcels of her land, respectively now owned by plaintiffs and defendant.

[590]On November 3, 1875, Mrs. Munoz conveyed to one Deleissiguez the tract of land described in the complaint as lot 5, the northerly line of which was run along the general course of said stream, crossing and recrossing the same. At that time a dam was constructed at a point on the stream near the northeast corner of lot 5 for conducting water upon said lot; and from the time of his purchase up to January 31, 1887, Deleissiguez continuously used on said lot one-half of the waters of the stream for domestic, irrigating, etc., purposes. On January 31, 1887, Deleissiguez conveyed to plaintiffs the said lot 5, and they immediately en. tered into, and have ever since remained in, possession thereof. And from the time of their purchase up to April 15, 1894 (the time of the diversion complained of), they continuously used one-half of the water of said stream for their household purposes, for watering their stock, and for irrigating their yard and garden and an orchard of lemon and other fruit trees, all upon said lot.

In 1886, Mrs. Munoz conveyed to defendant two tracts of her land, one lying on the north side of plaintiffs’ lot 5 and contiguous thereto, called the “ Corbit” tract, and the other lying further up the stream and including the place where the stream arose, called the “ Gold-tree” tract, In 1888 defendant changed the place of diversion of the water used by him from the said dam to a point higher up the stream on the Goldtree tract, and laid pipes therefrom to his house on the Corbit tract, through which he conducted the other half of the water. Thereafter he continued to use the water so diverted for his household purposes, for watering his livestock, and for irrigating his land.

Smith v. Corbit

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief