Arizona Copper Co. v. Gillespie

Decision Date20 March 1909
Docket NumberCivil 1052
Citation100 P. 465,12 Ariz. 190
PartiesTHE ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, LIMITED, a Corporation, Defendant and Appellant, v. WILLIAM ALLAN GILLESPIE, Plaintiff and Appellee
CourtArizona Supreme Court

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, in and for the County of Graham. Frederick S. Nave Judge. Modified and affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

This action was brought by the appellee against the Shannon Copper Company, the Arizona Copper Company, Limited, and the Arizona Copper Company, to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from depositing mining debris in streams tributary to the Gila river. It appearing to the plaintiff that the Shannon Copper Company had ceased to do the acts complained of, and that the Arizona Copper Company was not a proper party, the action was dismissed as to both these corporations, and prosecuted against the appellant corporation only. Testimony was taken in May, and the cause submitted and judgment rendered in November, 1907, enjoining the defendant from depositing any slimes, slickens, or tailings in the San Francisco river or Chase creek, in such manner that they may be carried into, or enter into, the waters of the Gila river. The facts found by the trial court are:

"That the Gila river rises in the territory of New Mexico, and flows hence through a generally mountainous country, through the county of Graham, and other counties, in the territory of Arizona, in a westerly direction into the Colorado river at or near the city of Yuma, in the territory of Arizona. That the San Francisco river is an affluent of the said Gila river, emptying its waters into the said Gila river at or near the city of Clifton aforesaid, and above the head of the Montezuma and other canals, hereinafter described. That Chase creek is an affluent of the said San Francisco river emptying its waters into the said San Francisco river above the city of Clifton. That each and all of said streams are public streams within the said county of Graham, and the waters thereof are applicable to the purposes of mining irrigation, and domestic use. That the plaintiff is the owner and occupant of about two hundred and seventy-six acres of land in the Upper Gila Valley, near the town of Solomonville, and that said land is naturally desert and unproductive without the application of water thereon by irrigation. That the predecessors in interest of plaintiff in said land commenced the cultivation to valuable crops of portions of the same by means of water diverted from the Gila river through the Montezuma canal about the year 1872, and thereafter gradually increased the amount thereof so cultivated until, for more than fifteen years last past, the whole of said premises has been continually cultivated to valuable crops by means of said waters of the Gila river.

"That the said Montezuma canal, by and through which plaintiff diverts the water appropriated for use upon said land, as aforesaid, at all the times mentioned herein headed, and now heads, at a point upon the bank of said Gila river at or near the southwest corner of the NE. 1/4 of the NE. 1/4 of section 17, township 7 S., range 26 E., G. & S.R.B. & M., in said Graham county, at a distance of about twenty-five miles below the confluence of the said San Francisco river and said Gila river. That commencing at said head of the said Montezuma canal, and extending out into and across the said Gila river, was at all the times mentioned herein, and now is, maintained a dam for the purpose of diverting the waters of said Gila river into said canal. That said Montezuma canal is of a capacity sufficient to, and does, divert and carry three thousand inches of water, miners' measurement, from the said Gila river, and said canal extends out through the farming lands of the valley commonly known and called the 'Upper Gila Valley,' a distance of thirteen and one-half miles, all within the said county of Graham. That said canal carries the public water of said Gila river for the irrigation of more than three thousand seven hundred and fifty acres of land to which said water was and now is appropriated, diverted, and applied by the owners and occupants thereof for agricultural purposes, and drinking and domestic uses in connection therewith, amongst others, to the lands of plaintiff. That said canal and dam is maintained by the owners of said lands and plaintiff, for the purposes and uses aforesaid.

"That in the said Upper Gila Valley and county of Graham, and from a point on said Gila river, at or near eighteen miles below the confluence of said San Francisco and said Gila rivers, to a point fifty-three miles below said last-named point, numerous irrigation ditches, amongst others said Montezuma canal, were taken out of said Gila river at various times in and since the year 1872 by divers persons who were then, and are now, the owners and occupants of irrigable lands lying upon either side of said Gila river, and by means of said ditches the public waters of said river have been ever since appropriated, diverted, and applied to the irrigation and cultivation of a constantly increasing quantity of irrigable lands so situated under said canals and occupied by persons entitled to the use of said waters, amongst others this plaintiff, until at the time of the institution of this suit more than twenty-three thousand acres of such lands were so irrigated and cultivated; and the said lands theretofore desert and unproductive, were reclaimed and were made to, and do now, produce alfalfa, grains, vegetables, melons, fruits, trees, and vines. That at all the times herein mentioned said ditches have been, and are now, maintained, and said public waters of said Gila river used upon the aforesaid land for the irrigation thereof, and the cultivation of valuable crops as aforesaid, and for domestic and drinking purposes in connection therewith. That as a result of the use of said public waters of said Gila river, as aforesaid, a rich and prosperous farming community has been established upon the lands aforesaid, supporting the towns of Solomonville, of Safford, of Thatcher and others, in all a community of more than eight thousand persons.

"That in the mountains through which the said Gila river and its affluents flow, in the neighborhood of the towns of Clifton, Morenci, and Metcalf, within the county of Graham, are large deposits of copper ore and that several large mining companies, including the defendant, the Arizona Copper Company, Limited, are engaged in the business of mining and reducing said ores. That mining operations on said deposits were commenced by miners about the year 1872, and have been continuously and increasingly prosecuted since that date, and that said mining industry and the farming industry in the Upper Gila Valley, in which is situated the town of Solomonville, were commenced about the same time and have each grown and increased in volume and importance to the present time. That the defendant, the Arizona Copper Company, Limited, is engaged in the reduction and treatment of copper ore in said mining district, near the upper branches and affluents of the Gila river. That for the purpose of reducing and treating the said ores so mined, as aforesaid, said defendant has established upon the banks of said San Francisco river and said Chase cheek, and upon the sides of the canyons debouching into said last-named streams, concentrators of a capacity sufficient to, and which now actually, reduce and treat more than three thousand tons of copper ore each day. That it has invested a large amount of money in the development of said mining industry, and in the installation and equipment of concentrators, smelting and reduction works used in the reduction of the products of said mines, and that the plants of this defendant company now used in said operations represent an investment of about $15,000,000. That defendant, in its mining, smelting, and reduction of ores gives employment to about three thousand men, and that a community of about twelve thousand people are dependent for a livelihood upon the operations of the mining works of this defendant and of the other mining companies hereinbefore referred to. That in the reduction of said copper ores by this defendant said ores are crushed and mixed with water, and that a portion of the slickens, slimes, and tailings therefrom finds its way through the creeks, affluents, and canals upon which the works of said defendant are situated, into the waters of the Gila river, and becomes mingled therewith, and is carried by the waters of said Gila river down to the Upper Gila Valley, in which the farming operations of the plaintiff are carried on, and by and through said river and irrigating ditches, in the ordinary and necessary course of irrigation, to and upon the cultivated lands of plaintiff, and of others like situated.

"That the Gila river is normally subject to periods of flood and of lower water recurrent several times during each year, due to recurrence of torrential rains, alternating with periods without rain or with slow-falling rains. That during such periods of flood said river carries quantities of sedimentary matter, the product of erosion of the mountains, hills, and valleys through which it and its tributaries flow. That this sedimentary matter contains organic fertilizers. That such matter is, at such periods of flood, carried through said irrigating canals in the normal and necessary course of irrigation, to and upon the lands of plaintiff, and upon the cultivated lands of the valley, hereinbefore mentioned, and enhances their fertility, thereby in that respect benefiting said lands. That at such periods of flood the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Bartlett v. Grasselli Chem. Co
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 28 Noviembre 1922
    ...158 Fed. 225, 89 C. C. A. 139, 14 Ann. Cas. 8; Mc-Cleery v. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. (C. C.) 140 Fed. 951; Arizona Copper Co. v. Gillespie, 12 Ariz. 190, 100 Pac. 465; Woodruff v. North Bloomingfleld Gravel Min. Co. (C. C.) 18 Fed. 753, 9 Sawy. 441; Wente v. Commonwealth Fuel Co., 232 111......
  • Still v. Michaels
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 11 Marzo 1992
    ...L.Ed. 70 (1936). A private nuisance action, however, is a state common law claim. See Rest.2d of Torts § 821D; Arizona Copper Co. v. Gillespie, 12 Ariz. 190, 100 P. 465 (1909). Lack of jurisdiction in state court does not guarantee that the federal courts retain Furthermore, this Court must......
  • Hopi Tribe v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort Ltd. P'ship
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 29 Noviembre 2018
    ...the same kind of harm or interference but to a greater extent or degree," Restatement § 821C cmt. b; see also Ariz. Copper Co. v. Gillespie , 12 Ariz. 190, 201, 100 P. 465 (1909) (stating that special injury is "different in kind, and not merely in degree, from that suffered by the public g......
  • Bartlett v. Grasselli Chemical Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 28 Noviembre 1922
    ... ... 139, 14 Ann.Cas. 8; McCleery v. Highland Boy ... Gold Min. Co. (C. C.) 140 F. 951; Arizona Copper Co ... v. Gillespie, 12 Ariz. 190, 100 P. 465; Woodruff v ... North Bloomingfield Gravel ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT