Johnson v. Brinkerhoff
Decision Date | 11 May 1936 |
Docket Number | 5640 |
Citation | 89 Utah 530,57 P.2d 1132 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | JOHNSON et ux. v. BRINKERHOFF et al |
Appeal from District Court, Fifth District, Millard County; Dilworth Woolley, Judge.
Action by Francis W. Johnson and wife against David A. Brinkerhoff and others, wherein John Hansen and wife filed a cross-complaint. Decree and judgment in favor of plaintiffs and cross-complainants, and named defendant appeals.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
D. N Straup and Willard Hanson, both of Salt Lake City, and E Vance Wilson, of Fillmore, for appellant.
Skeen & Skeen, of Salt Lake City, for respondents Johnson.
W. B. Higgins, of Fillmore, for respondents Hansen.
Sam Cline, of Milford, for respondent State Bank of Millard County.
OPINION
This cause arises because of disputed claims to the use of underground waters flowing from three artesian wells drilled on the land of the defendant David A. Brinkerhoff. The total flow from the wells is 1.1 cubic feet per second, or 411.75 acre feet during the irrigation season of 183 days. Plaintiffs claim 6/17 of the water, over and above 140 acre feet per season, conceded to defendant. The second amended complaint is for damages for deprivation of use of the water, and to have title quieted in plaintiffs for the amount of water claimed. Cross-complainants John Hansen and wife make claim to the same amount of water, ask for damages, and a decree quieting title. From a decree and judgment in favor of plaintiffs and cross-complainants, for damages, for 6/17 of the well water over and above 140 acre feet, and limiting defendant to 140 acre feet per season, the defendant appeals. The errors assigned and argued are: (a) Refusal to strike the second amended complaint of plaintiffs, alleged to be the substitution of a new and different cause of action; (b) admitting in evidence and considering certain deeds and mortgage; (c) insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding as to damages; and (d) permitting plaintiff to maintain the cause without first submitting the controversy to arbitration as provided by contract.
Johnson, Hansen, and Brinkerhoff each own and operate farms in Millard county, located in the same general vicinity. The land of each farm is arid and the parties depend on well water for irrigation to produce crops. These parties, and others, entered into a written contract respecting the water prior to the time either of them took title to the lands they now occupy, unless it be the defendant Brinkerhoff whose deed is dated the same day. When defendant's deed was executed with reference to the time of making the contract and when delivered is not shown. The State Bank of Millard County was agent for the lands conveyed, and its cashier, Parker Robison, was the active agent in arranging the sale. The written documents involved, so far as affecting water rights, are quoted in full as follows:
Contract of March 3, 1928:
Warranty deed from A. Wayne Robison and wife to Brinkerhoff, dated March 3, 1928, recorded February 20, 1930:
Quitclaim deed from A. Wayne Robison and wife to Francis Wells Johnson for water only dated March 3, 1928, which was delivered about July, 1930, and recorded August 8, 1930:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Noor v. State
...at 630 ("[A] pleading should be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties."); Johnson v. Brinkerhoff , 89 Utah 530, 57 P.2d 1132, 1136 (1936) (holding that the relation back doctrine works "toward liberality in allowance of amendments to pleadings for the pu......
-
Anne Arundel County v. Fraternal Order of Anne Arundel Detention Officers and Personnel
...Co., 50 N.Y. 250, 258 (1872); Pepin v. Societe St. Jean Baptiste, 23 R.I. 81, 83-84, 49 A. 387, 388 (1901); Johnson v. Brinkerhoff, 89 Utah 530, 544-545, 57 P.2d 1132, 1139 (1936); Kinney v. Relief Assn., 35 W.Va. 385, 387, 14 S.E. 8 (1891), overruled, Board of Education v. W. Harley Miller......
-
Wasatch Oil Refining Co. v. Wade
... ... in some circumstances even after judgment and has a broad ... discretion in the matter of amendments to pleadings ... Johnson v. Brinkerhoff , 89 Utah 530, 57 ... P.2d 1132 ... A ... motion to reopen a case for the purpose of introducing ... further evidence ... ...
-
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Clegg
...cause of action. See Combined Metals, Inc., v. Bastian, 71 Utah 535, 267 P. 1020. I believe that case to be in conflict with Johnson v. Brinkerhoff, supra, and with present case. The term "cause of action" is used with many different meanings. United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil CO., 288 U.......