Compton v. Knuth, 15649.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | 15649. |
| Citation | 117 Colo. 523,190 P.2d 117 |
| Parties | COMPTON et al. v. KNUTH. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Pueblo County; J. Arthur Phelps, Judge.
Action by Herbert H. Knuth against L. B. Compton and another for an injunction against the of irrigation pump and against wrongful filling of ditch with sediment. To review an adverse judgment, defendants bring error.
Judgment reversed and case remanded with instructions.
John B. Barnard, of Pueblo, and Clyde T. Davis, of La Junta, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
The Mexican ditch has a decree for four second feet of water, one foot of which is owned by each of four neighboring farmers. A short distance below its headgate the ditch was constructed through a hill with banks some 14 feet high. Because of difficulty of maintaining the ditch through the cut, a detour ditch thereafter was constructed around the hill, and the portion of the ditch cut through the hill was abandoned, at least temporarily. During the low water season, it is necessary to maintain a dam in the stream in order to divert the water to which the owners are entitled through the ditch headgate, and the temporary sand dams, which have been constructed, have washed out every season, so that the ditch often could not be used. Some time ago Highberger, the first user fro the ditch, installed a pump at the river bank, raised his water to a higher level, and flumed it across both the detour and the original ditch to his own lateral, for irrigation of his lands independently of the other ditch owners. Some two years Before this action was instituted, defendants Compton, the second users of the ditch, installed a pump, flumed their water over the detour ditch, and dropped it in the abandoned portion of the old ditch which had been cut through the hill. From there the water ran down some 300 feet to the junction of the old and detour ditches and thence down the ditch to the Comptons' land. Plaintiff, who is the third user, and Garcia, the fourth user, still depend on the ditch headgate for their water diversion. The third user, Knuth, brought this action against the Comptons, the second users, alleging that the latter had installed, and were operating, a pumping plant and were 'pumping water sand and mud into another ditch not connected with the headgate of the said Mexican ditch, which said water, sand and mud flows down said ditch into which they are pumping as aforesaid and accumulates more dirt and sand to a point about 300 feet where said ditch into which they are pumping connects with the Mexican ditch, thereby causing the water from the headgate of the Mexican ditch to be dammed and stopped from flowing down to the lands of plaintiff,' with further allegations that the Comptons refuse to keep the ditches clean and free from sand and dirt and threaten to continue their pumping operations, with prayer that the Comptons be enjoined from operating the pumping plant and obstructing the flow of water from the headgate of the Mexican ditch to plaintiff's lands. Defendants Compton in answering, alleged neglect and failure of plaintiff to contribute his share towards maintaining the dam or ditch and their necessity of pumping in order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe
...mechanism for GAVEL. Injunctions are an extraordinary remedy which the courts should employ sparingly. Compton v. Knuth, 117 Colo. 523, 527, 190 P.2d 117, 118-19 (1948). The injunctive remedy is an especially delicate matter when the courts seek to interfere with the legislative process, Ci......
-
Goldammer v. Fay, 7276.
...and should be granted only in cases where the necessity therefor is clearly established. 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 15. Compton v. Knuth, 117 Colo. 523, 190 P.2d 117. In the absence of a statutory provision, injunctive relief is not a matter of right, and the granting or refusing of such relie......
-
Brighton Ditch Co. v. City of Englewood
...abandonment of all or part of the ditch by change of point of diversion or of place of use is not an actionable injury. Compton v. Knuth, 117 Colo. 523, 190 P.2d 117. The case of In re Johnson, 50 Idaho 573, 300 P. 492, 494, involved application for change of point of diversion to permit us......
-
Allen v. City and County of Denver
...a temporary injunction is in the discretion of the trial court * * *.' Speaking generally of injunctions, this court in Compton v. Knuth, 117 Colo. 523, 190 P.2d 117, 118, '* * * injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly and only in cases where the applicant is clearly enti......
-
The Civil Litigator
...of Security Interests in Colorado," 25 Rocky Mountain Law Review (1952), p. 1. 16. Krause, supra, note 2. 17. Compton v. Knuth, 117 Colo. 523, 190 P.2d 117 (1948). 18. Supra, note 15 at 20. This month's column was written by Patrick F. Kenney, Denver, of Fairfield and Woods, and Christina N......
-
Chapter 12 - § 12.9 • DITCH LIENS
...over the signature of the claimant or an agent authorized in writing.495 --------Notes:[485] C.R.S. § 38-23-101. See Compton v. Knuth, 190 P.2d 117 (Colo. 1948) (co-tenant maintaining ditch entitled to contribution under general principles of law). [486] Johnston v. Wanamaker Ditch Co., 38 ......