Williams v. Harter

California Supreme Court May 31, 1898 No. Sac. No. 363Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff established a superior right to the water through prior appropriation on public lands and that the conveyance of the ditch effectively transferred the appurtenant water rights. Furthermore, the court affirmed that declarations made by a predecessor in interest regarding property rights are admissible against subsequent claimants.

Issues

Whether the defendants were jointly liable for the diversion of water and the resulting damages.
Whether the plaintiff acquired a valid water right through prior appropriation on public lands.
Whether the conveyance of a ditch includes the appurtenant water rights.
Whether declarations of a grantor are admissible against a successor in interest.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the water flowing from springs on public lands may be diverted to other public lands and there used for irrigation or other necessary purposes, and a right to the same acquired as against anyone who subsequently obtains title”

“If Stone owned the ditch, and by means of it had appropriated and acquired a right to the waters of the springs, then the waters were incidental or appurtenant to the ditch, and a conveyance of the ditch carried with it the water right.”

“Where, however, one derives title to real property from another, the declaration, act, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.”

Synopsis

Water Rights—Action for Diversion—Joint Judgment fob Damages— Findings.—In an action to enjoin the diversion of water, and to recover damages for past diversions, where the answer did not deny the diversions, and set up a joint right to the use of the water diverted, no finding of joint liability or joint commission of the acts complained is necessary to support a joint judgment for damages; nor was it necessary to find that the acts alleged to have been done by the defendants “were done wrongfully or without right,” where the court found that the plaintiff was the owner of all the water flowing in the stream, and that defendants committed the acts charged in depriving her of the use thereof.

Id.—Appropriation—Springs on Public Lands.—All public lands are open to occupation and settlement by citizens of the United States, and the water flowing from springs on public lands may be diverted to other public lands by means of ditches and there used for irrigation or other necessary purpose, and a right to the same acquired as against anyone who subsequently obtains title to the land on which the springs are situated.

Id.—Quitclaim Deed of Ditches—Appurtenant Water Rights.—Where the springs were the only tributaries of a certain creek, and a ditch was taken therefrom leading to that creek, and another ditch was taken out of the creek to lands upon which the water was used, a quitclaim deed of such ditches by the owner of an interest therein transferred his rights in the waters of the springs, which were incidental or appurtenant to the ditches by means of which such waters had been appropriated, although not specifically mentioned in the deed.

Id.—Evidence—Declarations of Defendant’s Grantor.—Declarations made by the grantor of the defendants while he was in possession of the land upon which the springs were situated, relating to the ownership and right to the use of the water from the springs, and the ditches leading therefrom, are admissible for the plaintiff as against the defendants.

Denial of New Trial—Refusal of Heabing—Affidavits—Exceptions— Appeal.—Affidavits made subsequent to the denial of a motion for new trial setting forth that the motion was arbitrarily denied without hearing or considering the grounds presented and urged in support thereof, form no part of the record upon appeal from the order, and cannot be considered upon such appeal. The only mode in which such a Question can be brought up for review is to except at the time to the action of the court and to have the facts embodied and settled in a bill of exceptions; and the real and only Question is, Did the court err in denying the motion?

BELCHER, C. George E. Williams died testate in the county of Modoc in 1891, owning a large tract of land in that county. His will was duly admitted to probate, and Mary E. Williams, his surviving wife, was appointed executrix thereof. As such executrix she brought this action to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from diverting water from the said lands,, and also to recover damages for past diversions.

It is alleged in.the complaint that the estate .of said decedent now owns and occupies, and it and its grantors and predecessor® have owned and occupied for more than twenty years last past, a large tract of land in Modoc county known as the “Williams Ranch,” and which is particularly described. The complainant also describes two certain springs of water, their location and capacity, and a ditch leading therefrom, which it is alleged diverts and conveys all of the water of said springs to and upon said land, where the same is used for irrigation, for the watering of stock, and for domestic purposes, and has been used by plaintiff's testator and his grantor for the last twenty years or more, when not prevented from so doing by defendants.

It is further alleged that the grantor of plaintiff’s testator, one J. U. Stone, constructed the said ditch and thereby diverted and appropriated, and acquired a right to, all the waters of both of said springs in the year 1871, and that he conveyed all his rights thereto to said testator in the year 1877. It is also alleged that within the year before filing the complaint, which [49]was on August 25, 1891, the defendants entered upon plaintiffs said dams and ditch, at sundry points, and broke and destroyed the same, and placed dams in said ditch, and have thereby diverted the waters of said springs from plaintiffs ditch and deprived her of the use thereof, and threaten to continue so to do, to her damage, etc.

The defendants filed separate demurrers to the complaint, which were overruled, and then filed a joint answer denying all its material averments, except as to the diversion of the water, and setting up title in themselves to the waters of the said springs: 1. By prescription; 2. As owners of the riparian lands; and 3. By estoppel.

The case was tried, and the court found all the facts in favor of the plaintiff, and gave judgment in her favor, granting the injunction as prayed for and awarding damages in the sum of two hundred dollars. From that judgment and an order denying a new trial defendants appeal.

Williams v. Harter

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief