Beckham v. Ward County Irr. Dist. No. 1
Decision Date | 19 November 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 1818.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 278 S.W. 316 |
Parties | BECKHAM v. WARD COUNTY IRR. DIST. NO. 1. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Ward County; Chas. Gibbs, Judge.
Action by E. J. Beckham against Ward County Irrigation District No. 1. From a judgment sustaining a general demurrer and dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
H. G. Russell, of Pecos, for appellant.
Birge Holt, of Barstow, for appellee.
E. J. Beckham, appellant, brought this suit against appellee, Ward County irrigation district No. 1, and against Ward County irrigation district No. 3 ( ), to recover damages to his growing crop of cotton, alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of the failure of appellee district No. 1 to maintain a certain flume constructed over the main line canal of appellee district No. 1.
Appellant, having purchased the B. T. Biggs lands lying on either side of the canal over which the flume was to be constructed and maintained, bases his suit upon a certain instrument in writing made an exhibit to his petition and is in words and figures substantially as follows:
Appellee presented, and the trial court sustained, a general demurrer to appellant's petition, and appellant refusing to amend the suit was dismissed. The correctness of the court's ruling on the general demurrer presents the only question for our consideration. The petition is sufficient, we think, as against a general demurrer.
The question presented is a proper construction of the clause in the instrument reading: "A flume will be constructed and maintained on the north side of the land across said canal for the purpose of said B. T. Biggs, conveying water for the irrigation of his land lying on the west side of said Rocky Ford Canal." Is this a covenant that runs with the land, so as to inure to the benefit of appellant as the vendee of Biggs, and give appellant, not named in the instrument, nor otherwise showing any privity of interest with Biggs in the matters involved, a right of action against appellee for failure to maintain the flume? Or is the undertaking of appellee to maintain the flume, when construced, a collateral undertaking, personal to Biggs, which does not run with the land demised?
The petition alleged that appellee is an irrigation district duly organized under the laws of this state, and that appellant is the owner of the land in controversy, describing the two tracts by metes and bounds, and that the land is situated in Ward County water improvement district No. 3, and is susceptible to irrigation therefrom, and is entitled to the use of the water diverted by district No. 3 for irrigation; that district No. 3 and district No. 1 are each entitled to divert the water from the Pecos river to lands lying within their respective boundaries for specified days in each month. The petition then sets out the instrument copied above upon which he bases his cause of action, and alleges that appellant noticed said flume was in bad state of repair and in danger of falling in, thereby obstructing the flow of the water in his intake ditches formerly used by Biggs and now by appellant for watering his said lands, and so notified appellee, who pretended to fix...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris County Houston Ship C. Nav. Dist. v. Williams, 10130.
...v. Blair, 108 N.J.Eq. 82, 154 A. 4; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 72 Tex. 122, 9 S.W. 865, 2 L.R.A. 281; Beckham v. Ward County Irr. Dist. No. 1 (Tex. Civ.App.) 278 S.W. 316; Cunningham v. Buel (Tex.Civ.App.) 287 S.W. 683; Hooper v. Lottman (Tex.Civ.App.) 171 S.W. 270; Curlee v. Walker......
-
Thomson v. Dozier
...v. Knipe, 225 N.Y. 390, 122 N.E. 202; Smith v. Gulf Refining Co., 162 Ga. 191, 134 S.E. 446, 51 A.L.R. 1323; Beckham v. Ward County Irr. Dist., Tex. Civ.App., 278 S.W. 316. Our holding here in no way conflicts, we think, with those of the Supreme Court in the cases of Baker v. Henderson, 13......
-
Sayles v. Owens
...See, also, Curlee v. Walker, 112 Tex. 40, 244 S.W. 497; Davis v. Skipper, 125 Tex. 364, 371, 83 S.W.2d 318; Beckham v. Ward County Irrigation Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W. 316, writ refused; Hooper v. Lottman, Tex.Civ. App., 171 S.W. 270; Edwards v. West Woodridge Theater Co., 60 App.D.C. 3......
-
Dryden v. Calk, Civ. A. No. L-89-10.
...of substantial benefit to Tract 1, clearly touching and concerning the land in question. See Beckham v. Ward Cty. Irrig. Dist. No. One, 278 S.W. 316, 318 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso, 1925, writ ref'd) (construction of flume to irrigate land); see also 20 Am Jur.2d Covenants, Conditions, and Res......