Bean v. Morris
Citation | 221 U.S. 485,55 L.Ed. 821,31 S.Ct. 703 |
Decision Date | 29 May 1911 |
Docket Number | No. 122,122 |
Parties | J. N. BEAN, W. R. Bainbridge, S. W. Bent, Wallace Bent, and Corbett Bennett, Petitioners, v. W. A. MORRIS et al |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Thomas J. Walsh, Cornelius B. Nolan, and George W. Pierson for petitioners.
Messrs. William M. Ellison, Alexander M. McCoy, N. W. McConnell, and O. W. McConnell for respondents.
This suit was brought by the respondent Morris, to prevent the petitioners from so diverting the waters of Sage Creek in Montana as to interfere with an alleged prior right of Morris, by appropriation, to 250 inches of such waters in Wyoming. Afterwards the other respondent, Howell, was allowed to intervene and make a similar claim. Sage creek is a small creek, not navigable, that joins the Stinking Water in Wyoming, the latter stream flowing into the Big Horn, which then flows back northerly into Montana again, and unites with the Yellowstone. The circuit court made a decree that Morris was entitled to 100 inches miner's measurement, of date April, 1887, and that, subject to Morris, Howell was entitled to 110 inches, of date August 1, 1890, both parties being prior in time and right to the petitioners. 146 Fed. 423. On appeal the findings of fact below were adopted and the decree of the circuit court affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. ——L.R.A.(N.S.) ——, 86 C. C. A. 519, 159 Fed. 651.
It was admitted at the argument that, but for the fact that the prior appropriation was in one state, Wyoming, and the interference in another, Montana, the decree would be right, so far as the main and important question is concerned. It is true that some minor points were suggested, such as laches, abandonment, the statute of limitations, etc., but the findings of two courts have been against the petitioners upon all of these, and we see no reason for giving them further consideration. So we pass at once to the question of private water rights as between users in different states.
We know no reason to doubt, and we assume, that, subject to such rights as the lower state might be decided by this court to have, and to vested private rights, if any, protected by the Constitution, the state of Montana has full legislative power over Sage creek while it flows within that state. Kanasas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 93-95, 51 L. ed. 956, 973, 974, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655. Therefore, subject to the same qualifications, we assume that the concurrence of the laws of Montana with those of Wyoming is necessary to create easements, or such private rights and obligations as are in dispute, across thoir common boundary line. Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 521, 50 L. ed. 572, 579, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 268; Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux 218 U. S. 258, 260, 54 L. ed. 1032, 1037, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 11. But with regard to such rights as came into question in the older states, we believe that it always was assumed, in the absence of legislation to the contrary, that the states were willing to ignore boundaries, and allowed the same rights to be acquired from outside the state that could be acquired from within. Mannville Co. v. Worcester, 138 Mass. 89, 52 Am. Rep. 261; Thayer v. Brooks, 17 Ohio, 489, 49 Am. Dec. 474; Slack v. Walcott, 3 Mason, 508, 516, Fed. Cas. No. 12,932; Stillman v. White Rock Mfg. Co. 3 Woodb. & M. 538, Fed. Cas. No. 13,446; Rundle v. Delaware & R. Canal Co. 1 Wall. Jr. 275, Fed. Cas. No. 12,139, 14 How. 80, 14 L. ed. 335; Foot v. Edwards, 3 Blatchf. 310, Fed. Cas. No. 4,908. see Wooster v. Great Falls Mfg. Co. 39 Me. 246, 253; Armendiaz v. Stillman, 54 Tex. 623; State v. Lord, 16 N. H. 357; Howard v. Ingersoll, 17 Ala. 780, 793. There is even stronger reason for the same assumption here. Montana cannot be presumed to be intent on suicide, and there are as many if...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. American Ditch Ass'n, 5445
......Parker, 19 Idaho 727, 115 P. 488;. Youngs v. Regan, 20 Idaho 275, 118 P. 499; Furey. v. Taylor, 22 Idaho 605, 127 P. 676; Morris v. Bean, 146. F. 425; 159 F. 651, 86 C. C. A. 519; 221 U.S. 485, 31 S.Ct. 703, 55 L.Ed. 821.). . . The. water appropriation statutes ......
-
State of Arizona v. State of California
...before the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. 12 (1926). 81 See id., at 97, 115. 82 Bean v. Morris, 221 U.S. 485, 31 S.Ct. 703, 55 L.Ed. 821 (1911). This case was relied on by Mr. Justice Van Devanter in Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 466, 42 S.Ct. 552, 558, ......
-
Grover Irrigation and Land Company v. Lovella Ditch, Reservoir and Irrigation Company
......394; Strickley v. Highland. Boy Co., 200 U.S. 527; Potlach Lumber Co. v. Peterson, 12 Ida. 769, 88 P. 426; Healy Lumber Co. v. Morris, 33 Wash. 490, 74 P. 681; Columbus W. W. Co. v. Long, 121 Ala. 243, 25 So. 702.) In the last case. cited it was said to be an admitted fact ... in this state for the purpose of irrigating lands lying. wholly within a neighboring state. ( Willey v. Decker, 11 Wyo. 496; Bean v. Morris, 221 U.S. 485; Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 507; Basey. v. Gallagher, id. 681; Kansas v. Colo., 206. U.S. 46; Rickey L. & C. ......
-
People of the State of California v. United States
...the stream, the waters of which are appropriated, is interstate and nonnavigable, does not affect the rule." See Bean v. Morris, 221 U.S. 485, 31 S.Ct. 703, 55 L.Ed. 821. The rule there stated has been many times reaffirmed in this court, Brooks v. United States, supra, and in the Supreme C......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irr. Co., 174 U.S. 690 (1899); Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908); Bean v. Morris, 221 U.S. 485 (1911); United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 (1913); Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U.S. 405 (192......