Henshaw v. Salt River Valley Canal Co.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1906
• Docket Number: Civil 863
• Citation: 9 Ariz. 418,84 P. 908
• Parties: A. L. HENSHAW et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE SALT RIVER VALLEY CANAL COMPANY, a Corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

84 P. 908

9 Ariz. 418

A. L. HENSHAW et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE SALT RIVER VALLEY CANAL COMPANY, a Corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellees

Civil No. 863

Supreme Court of Arizona

March 30, 1906

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. Edward Kent Judge. Reversed.

Statement of facts:

A. L Henshaw and others, minority shareholders of The Salt River Valley Canal Company, brought suit against that company and others to obtain certain equitable relief. To the complaint defendants interposed a demurrer. The demurrer was sustained and judgment entered thereon. From this judgment plaintiffs have appealed. Reversed.

William Herring, and Thomas Armstrong, Jr., for Appellants.

C. F Ainsworth, Street & Alexander, and J. M. Jamison, for Appellees.

OPINION

NAVE, J.

-- A. L. Henshaw and others, representing themselves to be minority shareholders of the Salt River Valley Canal Company, brought suit against that company, the Arizona Water Company, and the Grand, Maricopa, Mesa, and Utah canal companies, corporations, to obtain certain equitable relief. The defendants, answering separately, demurred to the complaint, setting up by their demurrers several statutes of limitations, misjoinder of parties plaintiff, misjoinder of parties defendant, misjoinder of causes of action, and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The objection as to the misjoinder of parties and causes of action is effectually disposed of by a former decision of this court in this same case. Henshaw v. Salt River Valley Canal Co., 6 Ariz. 151, 54 P. 577. The complaint has been amended since it was formerly before this court by eliminating that cause of action wherein the plaintiffs as appropriators and beneficial users of water sought relief without reference to their relation to the Salt River Valley Canal Company as shareholders. The plaintiffs now complain solely in their capacity as shareholders in that company.

Matters in considerable variety and in some confusion are set up in the complaint, most of which still stand as they were summarized in the former opinion of the court, cited, supra. Stating the substance of the complaint in the briefest possible manner, it is that the plaintiffs are owners of shares of stock of the Salt River Valley Canal Company; that this company was organized to divert and convey water from Salt River to shareholders for beneficial use upon lands owned by such shareholders; that the Arizona Water Company owns the majority of the stock of and is in control of the Salt River Valley Canal Company, the Grand Canal Company, and the Maricopa Canal Company, and also owns and operates a canal known as the "Arizona Canal" that by willfully reducing the capacity of the Salt River Valley Canal, by selling water as a commodity to persons claiming to be shareholders who own no lands under that canal and have no appropriations of water thereunder, by selling water as a commodity to users of water under the Grand, Maricopa, and Arizona canals, who, with respect to plaintiffs, are subsequent appropriators of water from Salt River, and by other enumerated devices, all to the exclusive profit of the Arizona Water Company, plaintiffs and all shareholders of the Salt River Valley Canal Company in like situation with them are, to their continuous injury, deprived of the water to which they are entitled as shareholders owning lands and appropriating water through this canal to beneficial use upon such lands, and are forced to pay for such water as they can obtain in a manner and in an excessive amount, in violation of rights assured to them as such shareholders; that plaintiffs have demanded of the Salt River Valley Canal Company, its officers and directors, that they remedy the abuses complained of, but that relief has been denied, due to the wrongful influence and control exercised by the Arizona Water Company; that as part of the general wrongful scheme all of the defendants many years...