Daniels v. Adair
| Decision Date | 01 November 1923 |
| Citation | 220 P. 107,38 Idaho 130 |
| Parties | WILLIAM DANIELS, FRED B. PATTEE and JOSEPH L. PATTEE, Petitioners, v. RALPH W. ADAIR, Judge of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Defendant |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
WATERS AND WATER RIGHTS - PROHIBITION - INJUNCTION - WATER-MASTERS-EXCHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS-CONTEMPT-SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT TO WARRANT INJUNCTION.
1. Under the facts of this case, held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a temporary injunction to compel exchange of decreed waters of one stream for undecreed waters of another.
2. A writ of prohibition will issue to enjoin the judge of the trial court from proceeding further where it clearly appears that said court is proceeding wholly without and beyond its jurisdiction.
3. A water-master upon a stream, the waters of which have been decreed, must distribute the waters of said stream in compliance with such decree, and in the absence of a modification thereof cannot be compelled by mandatory injunction to do otherwise.
4. Complaint examined and found insufficient to warrant issuance of temporary injunction.
Original proceeding for writ of prohibition. Writ granted.
Writ of prohibition issued.
Burleigh & Glennon, for Plaintiffs.
A court has no authority to compel an exchange of property. It can only be taken from the owner for public use and then only after just compensation has been allowed in the manner prescribed by law.
It is the duty of the water-master to be governed by the terms of the decree under which he is distributing the water. (Stethem v. Skinner, 11 Idaho 374, 82 P. 451.)
The court is also bound by the terms of that decree and exceeds its jurisdiction when it attempts to direct the watermaster to distribute the water otherwise than in accordance with the decree through the force of either an injunction or writ of mandate. (Lewis v. Mountain Home Co-op. Irr. Co., 28 Idaho 682, 686, 156 P. 419.)
Prohibition is the proper remedy. (Gunderson v. District Court, 14 Idaho 478, 94 P. 166.)
This court may properly examine the complaint to determine whether or not it states a cause of action for the purpose of determining the propriety of this proceeding. (Ramsay v District Court, 33 Idaho 296, 193 P. 733.)
Whitcomb Cowen & Clark and E. H. Casterlin, for Defendants.
"A writ of prohibition cannot be issued to restrain the exercise of judicial functions." (Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 6 S.Ct. 570, 29 L.Ed. 601; Ex parte Detroit River Ferry Co., 104 U.S. 520, 26 L.Ed. 815; Orr v. State Board of Equalization, 3 Idaho 190, 28 P. 416.)
"A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent an inferior court from deciding erroneously in a matter within its jurisdiction, or to prevent the enforcement of an erroneous judgment."
"Where the lower tribunal has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, prohibition will not lie." (35 Cyc. 605; cases cited in note 34.)
Upon application for prohibition the only inquiries permitted are whether the inferior tribunal is exercising a jurisdiction it does not possess, or, having jurisdiction, has exceeded its legitimate powers. (32 Cyc. 629, note 1.)
This is an original proceeding brought to secure a permanent writ of prohibition enjoining the defendant, as judge of the district court of the sixth judicial district, from proceeding further in the matter of punishing petitioners as for contempt for their failure to comply with a certain injunctive order relating to the distribution of the waters of Agency Creek in Lemhi county.
From the record it appears that on August 15, 1923, Margaret Mahaffey and the Pioneer Bank & Trust Company, a corporation, filed a complaint in the district court of the sixth judicial district in and for Lemhi county in which they sought, among other things, to have awarded to them the right to the use of 175 inches of the waters of Agency Creek for the irrigation of their lands, which they alleged to be subject to irrigation from that stream. A ditch known as the Lemhi River Ditch was constructed in 1914 for the purpose of delivering water from the Lemhi River to Agency Creek and to supply intervening users. Plaintiffs seek by delivering a certain amount of water from the Lemhi River into the Lemhi Ditch, to have an equal amount of water delivered to them out of Agency Creek in exchange therefor. The complaint alleges that the petitioners, Fred B. Pattee and Joseph L. Pattee, subsequent to the construction of the Lemhi River Ditch, changed their point of diversion from a point where that ditch empties into Agency Creek to a point above it, thereby diverting the waters of Agency Creek and denying plaintiffs the right thereto. They also alleged that the petitioner, Daniels, water-master of Agency Creek, has refused to deliver any of the waters of Agency Creek to the plaintiffs to their great and irreparable damage. From the record it further appears that the waters of Agency Creek have been decreed; that the petitioners, Pattees, and others were awarded all of the waters of Agency Creek by decree made and entered by the district court of the sixth judicial district for Lemhi county on December 14, 1914, which decree is of record in that county.
Upon the filing of the complaint and on motion duly made Honorable George W. Edgington, Judge of the ninth judicial district, in the absence of the defendant judge, issued an injunction enjoining the petitioners from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's right to the use and enjoyment of 175 inches of the flow of the waters of Agency Creek so long as said amount of water is being supplied to the waters of Agency Creek from the Lemhi River through the Lemhi River Ditch and requiring petitioner, Daniels, water-master, to deliver to the plaintiffs 175 inches of the waters of Agency Creek so long as that amount of water is being supplied to the waters of Agency Creek through the Lemhi River Ditch. On August 17, 1923, petitioners filed a notice and motion to dissolve the injunction, the motion being supported by affidavits and verified answer. All of the material allegations of the complaint were denied by the answer. By way of affirmative defense, petitioners alleged the ownership of a large tract of land which is irrigated from Agency Creek and that such water is necessary for the proper irrigation of their lands; that all of the waters diverted from the Lemhi River through the Lemhi River Ditch are appropriated by the owners of said ditch and that the capacity thereof is insufficient to carry water in excess of that necessary for the proper irrigation of the lands of the owners of the ditch; that t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Petition of Board of Directors of Wilder Irrigation District
...against the wish and will of the owners of said lands, protestants herein. (Sec. 4, Art. 5, Idaho Constitution, 41-101, I. C. A.; Daniels v. Adair, 38 Idaho 130; Bennett v. Twin Falls North Side Land & Water 27 Idaho 643; Carey Lake Reservoir District v. Strunk, 38 Idaho 332; Welterding v. ......
-
Canyon View Irrigation Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co.
...Co. v. Darrington, 95 Idaho 16, 501 P.2d 700 (1972); In re Wilder Irrigation Dist., 64 Idaho 538, 136 P.2d 461 (1943); Daniels v. Adair, 38 Idaho 130, 220 P. 107 (1923); Reno v. Richards, 32 Idaho 1, 178 P. 81 I.C. § 42-105 permits commingling of water. It also permits an exchange or substi......
-
Arkoosh v. Big Wood Canal Co.
...S., 782; Hart v. Wabash etc. R. Co., 238 Ill. 336, 87 N.E. 367; DeFreitas v. Town of Suisun City, 170 Cal. 263, 149 P. 553; Daniels v. Adair, 38 Idaho 130, 220 P. 107; Seven Lakes Reservoir Co. v. Majors, 69 Colo. 196 P. 334; Bailey v. Idaho Irr. Co., 39 Idaho 354, 227 P. 1055.) Under the C......
-
Independent Irrigation Co. v. Baldwin
... ... right. (Lewis v. Mountain Home Co-op. I. Co., 28 ... Idaho 682, at 692, 156 P. 419; Daniels v. Adair, 38 ... Idaho 130, 220 P. 107.) ... BUDGE, ... J. Givens and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur. WM. E. LEE, C. J., ... concur in the ... ...