Bloom v. West
Decision Date | 27 March 1893 |
Citation | 32 P. 846,3 Colo.App. 212 |
Parties | BLOOM et al. v. WEST et al. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Las Animas county.
Suit by Ed West and others against F.G. Bloom and others. Plaintiffs obtained a decree. Defendants appeal. Modified.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by REED J.:
A suit in chancery was brought by appellees, to be declared to be the owners of one eighth of the water carried by an irrigating ditch known as the "Hoehne Ditch," and, in addition to one eighth, of an indefinite quantity, described in the complaint to be "the owner of the right to use for irrigating [certain lands described amounting to 40 acres or more] that portion of said water conveyed by said ditch, necessary for the proper irrigation for agricultural purposes of said land, and is the owner of the right to use said ditch for conducting said amount of water, necessary for the irrigation of said land for agricultural purposes, to the same." It appears by the pleading and evidence that other parties, who were made defendants, were the owners of three fourths of the ditch that their ownership and rights were conceded,--the contest being over the remaining one fourth, claimed to have been owned by appellee West and Bloom and his associates in common, their respective rights and ownership of the one fourth never having been determined. Plaintiffs asked to be decreed to be the owners of the interests as above stated and that the defendants (appellants) be enjoined from in any way interfering with it. The defendants answered, admitting by inference, the ownership of plaintiffs of one eighth of the ditch; admitting, also that they were the owners of one eighth, as stated in the complaint; but denying the right of the plaintiffs to any interest in such eighth, or to the use of any such water right from it, as claimed in the complaint for the use of the lands described; and for further answer, and what may be regarded as a cross complaint, filed the following: To which new matter of defense and cross complaint a replication and answer were filed, traversing all the material allegations. A trial was had to the court, a finding in favor of the plaintiffs, and a decree entered, the material part being as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gould v. Maricopa Canal Co.
... ... priorities of right to the use of water are property rights ... Such is the settled doctrine of this state." Bloom ... v. West, 3 Colo.App. 212, 32 P. 846 ... "According ... to the recent legal decisions, a party who owns land, and the ... right to ... ...
-
East Ridge of Fort Collins, LLC v. Larimer & Weld Irr. Co.
...Right to Change Place of Use In Colorado, a water right generally is not appurtenant to certain lands. Bloom v. West, 3 Colo.App. 212, 219, 32 P. 846, 848 (1893). Thus, water rights can be bought, sold and transferred separate from the land. See Strickler v. Colorado Springs, 16 Colo. 61, 7......
-
Biggs v. The Utah Irrigating Ditch Co.
... ... allowed these vendees to yearly contribute to the keeping up ... and maintaining of said canal and dam. Bloom v ... West, 3 Colo.App. 212, 32 P. 846; Oppenlander v ... Left-Hand Ditch Co., 18 Colo. 142, 31 P. 854; ... Nichols v. McIntosh, 19 Colo ... ...
-
Josslyn v. Daly
... ... take the appurtenant water right, if there is any, in ... proportion to the amount of water previously used by the ... vendor on each. (Bloom v. West, 3 Colo. App. 212, 32 ... Where a ... written contract is clear and free from ambiguity, parol ... evidence is inadmissible to ... ...