Cortella v. Salt Lake City
Decision Date | 25 October 1937 |
Docket Number | 5570 |
Citation | 72 P.2d 630,93 Utah 236 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | CORTELLA v. SALT LAKE CITY |
Rehearing Denied February 11, 1938.
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; Allen G. Thurman, Judge.
Action by Alex Cortella against Salt Lake City, wherein Joseph Franklin Cortella, administrator of the estate of Alex Cortella, deceased, was substituted as plaintiff. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
JUDGMENT REVERSED, and cause remanded for new trial.
Fisher Harris, City Atty., and E. R. Christensen and Gerald Irvine Asst. City Attys., all of Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Ray Van Cott, of Salt Lake City, for respondent.
An action was commenced in the district court of Salt Lake county by Alex Cortella against Salt Lake City to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by said Cortella because of the failure of the city to furnish him water for irrigation purposes. After the suit was filed, Cortella died and the administrator of his estate was substituted as plaintiff. The administrator filed an amended complaint to which the city demurred generally and specially. The demurrer was overruled. The city answered by way of a general denial. A trial was had to the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff. The defendant city has appealed from that judgment and relies upon three propositions for a reversal of the judgment. They are: (1) The general demurrer to plaintiff's amended complaint should have been sustained; (2) the findings of fact, even if supported by some evidence, do not sustain any liability of defendant to plaintiff; and (3) the facts essential to liability were not established by any evidence.
The amended complaint, so far as is material here, alleged in substance as follows: That Cortella was, at the time of his death and for more than twenty years prior thereto had been, the owner of the south half of lot 15, block 7, 5-acre plat A, Big Field survey, in Salt Lake City; that, during 1930 and 1931, he was the lessee of the north half of said lot; that during the year 1931 he had planted certain crops on the land he owned as well as on the leased land, specifying in detail the crops and area planted to each crop; that for at least 20 years said lands have been highly productive when irrigated; that the irrigation season for more than 20 years has been from April 1 to October 1 of each year; that it has been necessary during all of said time to irrigate said lands when planted into crops at least once a week in order to maintain said crops in a good healthy growing and flourishing condition; that the crops planted by him were in good healthy condition and would have matured but for the neglect and failure of the defendant to furnish and deliver irrigation water therefor; that in a certain equity action in the district court of Salt Lake county all the water rights of Parley's Canyon Creek were settled and adjudicated by a decree entered May 2, 1912, by which decree it was adjudged that a lateral of said creek known as the Turnbow ditch was, and since 1850 has been, entitled to 547/2078.91 of 83.7 per centum of the waters and flow of said creek for irrigation of 547 acres of land, subject to exchange agreement made and entered into by and between plaintiff's grantors and predecessors in interest and others, dated June 25, 1888, a copy of which is annexed to and made a part of the complaint; that said decree has been, ever since its entry, and now is, in full force and effect; that plaintiff is informed and believes that the lands above described have been ever since 1850 and now are included within and form a part of said 547 acres under the Turnbow ditch; that by virtue of the terms of said exchange agreement and the action taken by the board provided for in said agreement, as agent of the parties, it became the duty of defendant to deliver at the intake of the Turnbow ditch where it meets and opens into the channel of said creek 5.11 second feet of water for the period from May 13 to August 15, 1931, and 1.43 second feet of water from August 15 to October 1, 1931; that copies of the report and official action of said board are attached to and made a part of the complaint; that during the irrigation season of 1931 it was the practice of the water users under the Turnbow ditch to divide the stream into two equal parts among the users thereof so that each user might have half the stream for a specified number of hours allotted by the users; that, pursuant to said practice, Cortella was entitled, during the irrigation season of 1931, to half the Turnbow ditch stream for a period of 12 hours each week during the season; that said water to which Cortella was entitled under the allotment and practice was necessary and would have been sufficient to properly irrigate his lands and to have properly matured the crops thereof; that defendant failed and neglected to deliver at the intake of the Turnbow ditch or otherwise, or at all, the quantities of water adjudicated and allotted to it by said board or any substantial part thereof during the time from June 1 to October 1, 1931; that as a consequence Cortella was unable to obtain any water out of the Turnbow ditch during said period of time, and his crops wholly perished to his loss in the sum of $ 1,500. Presentation to and rejection by the city commissioners of a verified claim is also alleged.
After reciting that the first parties to said exchange agreement are the owners of primary rights to the waters of Parley's Canyon creek and the city owns the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal and that the city desires to exchange canal water from said canal for the creek water held by the first parties, to which exchange the first parties have agreed, the agreement then provides:
The agreement then provides that, though the first parties retake the creek water because of the city's failure to furnish canal water, the city again may have the creek water by furnishing sufficient canal water to make up for any delays in irrigation caused...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fitzstephens v. Watson
...Miller, 1890, 136 Pa. 640, 20 A. 706, 9 L.R.A. 810; Ball v. Rio Grande Canal Co., Tex.Civ.App.1923, 256 S.W. 678; Cortella v. Salt Lake City, 1937, 93 Utah 236, 72 P.2d 630. Cases to the contrary may be found in 3 Powell on Real Property, § 407, p. The right to use water from a spring or st......
-
Bear River Drainage Area, In re
...matter of this suit have been characterized by this and other courts as an interest in real property. As we said in Cortella v. Salt Lake City, 93 Utah 236, 72 P.2d 630, the right itself is treated as an incorporeal hereditament and is real property. In Elliot v. Whitmore, 10 Utah 238, 37 P......
-
First Nat'l Bank of Wynne v. Twin Creeks Special Serv. Dist., Dist.
...1978) ("a deed which conveys land . . . also conveys the right to use appurtenant water, unless expressly reserved."); Cortella v. Salt Lake City, 72 P.2d 630 (Utah 1937).5 But water may be "part of land in a contractual sense, regardless of appurtenance. Water becomes "part of land for pur......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...73-1-11; Stephens v. Burton, Utah, 546 P.2d 240 (1976); Thompson v. McKinney, 91 Utah 89, 63 P.2d 1056 (1937); Cortella v. Salt Lake City, 93 Utah 236, 72 P.2d 630 (1937).3 Stephens v. Burton, supra note 2.4 Heiselt v. Heiselt, 10 Utah 2d 126, 349 P.2d 175 (1960); Utah Oil Refining Co. v. L......