Hubble v. Cache County Drainage District No. 3
Decision Date | 29 July 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 7932,7932 |
Parties | HUBBLE et al. v. CACHE COUNTY DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 3 et al. |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
George D. Preston, Logan, for appellants.
LeRoy B. Young, Ogden, Bullen & Olson, Logan, for respondents.
The defendant Cache County Drainage District was cited into the court below upon an order to show cause why it should not be punished for contempt of court for alleged violation of an amended decree of the lower court. The original decree was before this court on a previous appeal, Utah, 237 P.2d 843, but while the appeal was pending, the parties entered into a stipulation for the purpose of amending the decree. We remanded the case and the amended decree was subsequently entered by the lower court on December 10, 1951.
The Cache County Drainage District Number Three is located in the Northern portion of Cache County, the natural topography dividing the district into the Northern and Southern Divisions. The drain for the Northern Division, so-called Outlet No. 1, flows across the plaintiffs' land into the Bear River, and the drain for the Southern Division, Outlet No. 2, flows across the land of individuals not involved in this suit, entering the meandering Bear River at a point further south. The amended decree adjudges the defendant Drainage District to have a perpetual easement across plaintiffs' land to drain the Northern Division through Outlet No. 1.
After entry of the amended decree, defendant Drainage District obtained the necessary consent of landowners, not including plaintiffs, to modify the manner of operation of the District so that a large portion of its drainage waters which previously flowed from the Northern Division into Outlet No. 1, flowed into Outlet No. 2, thereby reducing the area drained across plaintiffs' land from approximately 705 to 137 acres and reducing the flow of water through Outlet No. 1 by approximately 70%. This was accomplished by the construction of a new drain leading to Outlet No. 2 and an earth dam at the head of Outlet No. 1. Although the dam was destroyed by an unprecedented spring runoff, the difference in level of the drains still caused a major portion of the runoff to course through Outlet No. 2, and after the spring runoff subsided, the reduction in flow of approximately 70% remained.
In the fall of 1952, one Cyril Pitcher, owning approximately 40 acres of land located in the Northern Division of the Drainage District and situated so that drainage would be through Outlet No. 1 and across plaintiffs' land, with the knowledge and consent of defendant, constructed two new tile drains. We must assume that these new drains will increase the amount of water drained from Pitcher's land, but at the same time we again direct attention to the fact that the overall drainage burden has been lessened by approximately 70%. Since the evidence indicates that other landowners in the Northern Division are contemplating new drains, we are led to the following inquiry, all the errors assigned going to substantially the same point: Under the terms of the amended decree, is the burden on the servient estate tested by the flow of water through Outlet No. 1 on April 8, 1947, or by the number, size and location of the drains existing on the dominant estate as of April 8, 1947? In order to answer the question, it is necessary to quote portions of the amended decree as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stern v. Metro. Water Dist. of Salt Lake & Sandy, 20100339.
...of reasonable technological improvements would differ under the easement or the covenants. 39. See Hubble v. Cache Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 3, 123 Utah 405, 259 P.2d 893, 896 (1953) (“[T]he law favor[s] changes and improvements for the benefit of the dominant estate so long as the manifest ......
-
SRB Inv. Co. v. Spencer
...access or ingress and egress").19 See Richards v. Pines Ranch, Inc. , 559 P.2d 948, 949 (Utah 1977).20 Hubble v. Cache Cty. Drainage Dist. No. 3 , 123 Utah 405, 259 P.2d 893, 895 (1953).21 Valcarce v. Fitzgerald , 961 P.2d 305, 312 (Utah 1998) ; see also Nyman v. Anchor Dev., L.L.C. , 2003 ......
-
Weeks v. Wolf Creek Industries, Inc.
...the parties does not disallow the changes and the burden to the servient tenement is not increased." Hubble v. Cache County Drainage Dist. No. 3, 123 Utah 405, 410, 259 P.2d 893, 896 (1953). "[w]here a dominant estate is divided into separate parcels, unless specifically reserved, the right......
-
Albuquerque Nat. Bank v. Second Judicial Dist. Court
...to give effect to all of its terms, if possible. Paxton v. McDonald, 72 Ariz. 378, 236 P.2d 364 (1951); Hubble v. Cache County Drainage District No. 3, 123 Utah 405, 259 P.2d 893 (1953). When the first paragraph is read in light of the second paragraph, the order becomes ambiguous--how does......