Mahaffey v. Carpenter
| Decision Date | 22 June 1926 |
| Citation | 42 Idaho 619,248 P. 13 |
| Parties | MARGARET MAHAFFEY, Appellant, v. WILLIAM M. CARPENTER and LULU CARPENTER, Respondents |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
WATERS AND WATERCOURSES-FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND JUDGMENT OUTSIDE ISSUES-NECESSARY FINDINGS-COSTS.
1. Findings, conclusions and judgment, in action to quiet title to irrigation ditch, granting to defendants right to enlarge ditch, held improper as being outside issues.
2. After finding that defendants had right to use irrigation ditch inferior to plantiff's use of present carrying capacity, court should have found capacity of ditch and acreage on which waters were to be applied.
3. Under C. S., sec. 5325, court had authority, in action to quiet title to irrigation ditch, to direct each of parties to pay costs on finding that defendants had right to use of ditch inferior to right of plaintiff.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Lemhi County. Hon. Ralph W. Adair, Judge.
Action to quiet title to irrigation ditch. Judgment for plaintiff. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Reversed and remanded.
E. H Casterlin and Whitcomb, Cowen & Clark, for Appellant.
Facts pleaded but not proved or admitted will not sustain a judgment. (Muckle v. Hill, 32 Idaho 661, 187 P. 943; Lowe v. Turner, 1 Idaho 107; Kullmann v. Greenebaum 84 Cal. 98, 24 P. 49.)
Judgment must be limited to the relief demanded or to such as is embraced within the issues. (C. S., sec. 6829; Brunzell v. Stevenson, etc., 30 Idaho 202, 164 P. 89; Dover Lumber Co. v. Case, 31 Idaho 276, 170 P. 108; Burke Land etc. Co. v. Wells, 7 Idaho 42, 60 P. 87; County of Yuba v. Kate Hays M. Co., 141 Cal. 360, 74 P. 1049; Faure v. Drollinger, 60 Cal. 594, 213 P. 724.)
In an action involving title to an irrigation ditch, the party in whose favor judgment is rendered is entitled to costs. (Brunzell v. Stevenson, supra.)
L. E Glennon, for Respondents.
"Where one makes a parol agreement with the owner of certain lands that in consideration of a right of way through the same, such owner shall have an interest in such ditch to the extent of sufficient water therefrom to irrigate his lands, and such an agreement has been acted upon and the ditch constructed, it is binding upon both the party making the agreement and those holding or claiming to hold under him." (Kinney on Irrigation and Water Rights, 2d ed., p. 1635; Feeney v. Chester, 7 Idaho 324, 63 P. 192; Stowell v. Tucker, 7 Idaho 312, 62 P. 1033; Male v. Leflang, 7 Idaho 348, 63 P. 108; Francis v. Green, 7 Idaho 668, 65 P. 362; Barton v. Dunlap, 8 Idaho 82, 66 P. 832; Fleming v. Baker, 12 Idaho 346, 85 P. 1092; Havlick v. Davidson, 15 Idaho 787, 100 P. 91; King v. Seebeck, 20 Idaho 223, 118 P. 292; Houser v. Hobart, 22 Idaho 735, 127 P. 997, 43 L. R. A., N. S., 410; Wolf v. Eagleson, 29 Idaho 177, 157 P. 1122; C. S., sec. 7975.)
This action was brought by Margaret Mahaffey in her own right and as the duly appointed administratrix of the estate of James Mahaffey, deceased, to quiet title to an irrigation ditch constructed by the Mahaffeys' predecessor across a considerable portion of the lands of respondents and used for the purpose of conducting water from Agency Creek to and upon the lands of appellant.
Respondents, in their answer, affirmatively allege that appellant's predecessor was permitted to construct the irrigation ditch in question across their lands with the understanding that when the ditch was completed respondents should have a right in the ditch of sufficient carrying capacity to convey to their lands water which they were entitled to receive from Agency Creek; that after the ditch was completed they used the same to convey water to their land, and have, for a period of more than seven years immediately preceding the commencement of this action, continued to use the ditch with the full knowledge of and without objection on the part of appellant.
Judgment was entered in favor of appellant quieting her title in and to the irrigation ditch, including a reasonable strip of land on either side thereof for the customary and necessary use in maintaining and operating the same, to the extent of its present carrying capacity; and the respondents were granted the right to enlarge the ditch to make it of sufficient carrying capacity to convey water which they were entitled to receive from Agency Creek, having due regard at all times for the rights of appellant. From the judgment so entered this appeal is prosecuted.
The court found that the irrigation ditch crosses a large portion of the lands of respondents; that said ditch was constructed by one Smith, appellant's predecessor, and the land of respondents upon which the same was constructed was appropriated and used without due process of law or compensation; that respondents permitted appellant's predecessor to construct the irrigation ditch in question with the understanding on their part that they should have a right in the ditch when completed to the extent of sufficient carrying capacity therein to convey to their lands the waters which they were and now are entitled to receive from Agency Creek. The court further found that respondents used the ditch for a period of more than seven years before the commencement of this action with the full knowledge of and without objection on the part of appellant, and further found that the rights and equities of the parties to the action are such that appellant ought to be and is estopped from denying the right of respondents to...
To continue reading
Request your trial