Hayward v. Mason
| Decision Date | 25 September 1909 |
| Parties | HAYWARD v. MASON. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; E. B. Preble Judge.
Suit by Walter C. Hayward against Ruth Mason. Decree for complainant and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See also, 104 P. 141.
Fred Parker and O. O. Felkner, for appellant.
Hovey & Hale, for respondent.
The respondent brought this action to restrain the appellant from destroying dams in an irrigation ditch. The appellant claimed the exclusive right to the use of the ditch for irrigating purposes. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and findings were made to the effect that each had a right to use the ditch for a certain amount of water for irrigating purposes, and thereupon the court entered a decree restraining each of the parties from interfering with the other. The defendant has appealed.
It appears that the respondent is the owner of the S 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 11, township 18 N., range 17, E. W. M being 80 acres of land in Kittitas county; that the appellant is the owner of a tract of land lying to the east of respondent's land; that a large irrigation canal runs across the southwest corner of respondent's land. This canal is known as the 'West Side Irrigating Company's Canal.' It is owned by a stock company. Each stockholder is entitled to a certain amount of water. Both respondent and appellant own stock in the company, and are entitled to water on account thereof. A ditch has been dug along the south line of respondent's land, which ditch extends from the southeast corner to a point near the middle of the tract of land where the ditch connects with an old natural water channel. This natural channel extends some distance within respondent's land, and continues by a circuitous route around a hill to a point near the West Side Irrigation Company's Canal, where another ditch connects this natural water channel with said canal. This natural canal and the ditches connected with it have been used for many years for irrigating and draining the respondent's land, and also for irrigating appellant's land. In June, 1900, the respondent, by written instrument, conveyed to the appellant a right of way for water from the West Side Irrigating Company's Canal, as follows: 'That said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00 to him in hand paid by the party of the second part, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents does grant, bargain and sell and convey unto said party of the second part and their successors in interest in (certain described lands) the right of way for a water ditch across the south half of the southeast one quarter of section 11, in said township and range, to carry water for irrigation purposes from the canal of the West Side Irrigation Company up the side now occupied by said water ditch through the tract aforesaid together with the right of ingress to and egress from the last described tract in order to maintain and keep the said ditch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Lake Cushman Maint. Co.
...limited. Nonetheless, the limited case law shows that exclusive easements are recognized under Washington law. See Hayward v. Mason , 54 Wash. 649, 652, 104 P. 139 (1909) (holding that the circumstances surrounding the grant of an easement to use a waterway did not show that the easement wa......
-
Lam v. Bravo
...is that the easement is not exclusive, i.e, does not prohibit use for the benefit of the Bravo Property. See Hayward v. Mason, 54 Wash. 649, 650-52, 104 P. 139 (1909) (holding that an ambiguous right of way for the use of a ditch was not exclusive where the grantor used the ditch prior to a......
-
Twin Falls Canal Co. v. AMERICAN FALLS R. DIST. NO. 2
...to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right." See, also, Hayward v. Mason, 54 Wash. 649, 104 P. 139; Glavin v. Salmon River Canal Co., 44 Idaho, 583, 258 P. 532; Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. Hancock, 101 Cal. 42, 31 P. 112, 35 P. App......
-
State v. Newcomb
...impair the easement holder's rights. City of Raymond v. Willapa Power Co., 102 Wash. 278, 281, 172 P. 1176 (1918); Hayward v. Mason, 54 Wash. 649, 652, 104 P. 139 (1909). Accordingly, Kredlo's easement arguably deprives Newcomb of the exclusive ownership rights he would otherwise have in th......