Chapman v. American Rio Grande Land & Irr. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 March 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 7313.)
• Citation: 271 S.W. 392
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. AMERICAN RIO GRANDE LAND & IRR. CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

271 S.W. 392

CHAPMAN v. AMERICAN RIO GRANDE LAND & IRR. CO.

(No. 7313.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 18, 1925.

Rehearing Denied April 15, 1925.

Error from District Court, Hidalgo County; L. J. Polk, Judge.

Action by the American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Company against J. A. R. Chapman and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and named defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Bennett & Anderson, of Mercedes, and Dawson, Henry & Walker, of Mission, for plaintiff in error.

Gause & Kirkpatrick, of Mercedes, and Glasscock & Leslie, of McAllen, for defendant in error.

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit by defendant in error, hereinafter designated Company, to recover of plaintiff in error, herein called Chapman, and M. E. France, the sum of $1,753.33, charges for water on four separate tracts of land lying contiguous to its irrigation canals. Chapman filed a cross-action for damages caused by the seepage of water upon his land from the canals of the Company. The court sustained exceptions to the cross-action and it was dismissed. The cause was then tried by jury, and upon their verdict judgment was rendered against Chapman for $1,014.48, due on a contract made by him with the Company on July 1, 1919, and for the foreclosure of a lien on certain land as against Chapman and France; judgment having been rendered against the latter by default.

Under the terms of the contracts between Chapman and the Company, certain land was conveyed to him, and the Company conveyed to Chapman the right to receive water (obtained from the Rio Grande) for irrigation purposes, for which Chapman agreed to pay $1 an acre, on the 1st days of July, October, January, and April; the minimum rate per annum being $3 an acre, whether the water was taken or not. Under the contracts, the sums due for the water were found by the jury and judgment rendered for them.

It seems to be the contention of Chapman, through the first, second, and third propositions, that by reason of the suit the Company was endeavoring to limit the right of Chapman to receive water only under the terms of the contracts. No evidence of such attempt can be found in the pleadings. It is a simple suit to enforce agreement to pay so much for water which the Company was ready and willing to furnish. The Company did not claim that Chapman did not have the right under the law to receive the water, and its contract to furnish the water in no manner impaired the efficacy of the law which gave Chapman the right to receive the water. The reasonableness of the water rate was not an issue; Chapman had fixed that by voluntarily entering into contracts at certain rates.

Chapman had the right in the absence of a contract to be furnished with water by the Company, and to receive the same, but under the law he had the right to have the water not contracted to others. The law recognizes the right of irrigation companies to enter into contracts for the sale of permanent water rights and to have the same secured by liens on the land or otherwise, and the Company was acting strictly within its statutory rights in making the water contracts. Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. Stats. 1914, arts. 5002a, 5002b. Contracts are contemplated by the statute, and the Company acted squarely within its powers in making the contracts involved in this case.

The statute provides for the lien foreclosed by the Company. The statute authorizes the disposition of the water controlled by the corporation for such time as may be agreed upon. Of course, that time might be as long as the life of the corporation, but it would not be a perpetuity and would be no restraint upon the alienation of the land. The lien is also given by statute.

It has been held, under the statute, that while the law requires an irrigation company to furnish...