Mandell v. San Diego Land & Town Co. of Maine

Decision Date22 August 1898
Citation89 F. 295
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of California
PartiesMANDELL et al. v. SAN DIEGO LAND & TOWN CO. OF MAINE (SHARP, Intervener).

Henry J. Stevens, for complainant.

Works &amp Works, for defendant.

A Haines, for intervener.

ROSS Circuit Judge.

The question in this matter is between the intervener and the San Diego Land & Town Company of Maine, a corporation of the state of Maine, successor in interest to the San Diego Land &amp Town Company of Kansas, a Kansas corporation, which latter company, pursuant to the laws of the state of California entered this state, and acquired, under and by virtue of its constitution and laws, waters and water rights for sale and distribution, and in pursuance of that purpose constructed a large and costly reservoir, and an extensive distributing system of pipes, for the purpose of supplying with water for irrigation and domestic use the inhabitants of National City, in the county of San Diego, and a large adjacent territory outside of that city, but within the county, much of which territory was the property of the company, which it designed to subdivide and sell. It did subdivide and sell a considerable portion of its lands, and furnished purchasers thereof with water for irrigation and domestic use, through and by means of its pipe system; and it also furnished water for similar purposes to the owners and occupants of neighboring lands not owned or sold by the company. The intervener, Sharp, owned 15 acres of land situated below, and within about 1,400 feet of, one of the company's mains; and on the 26th day of March, 1892, he and the company entered into a written contract by which, in consideration of the payments and agreements therein set forth, the company agreed to furnish him, subject, where not inconsistent with the provisions of the contract, to its general rules and regulations, water for the irrigation of his tract of land, for the term of five years, or any less number of years, at Sharp's option, at the rate of $11.50 per acre annually for each and every acre or part of an acre irrigated under the contract, provided that at least 7 1/2 acres should be paid for at the rate specified each and every year during the continuance of the contract,-- Sharp agreeing to furnish, connect, lay, and maintain in good order, at his own cost and expense, pipes of sufficient capacity and quality to conduct such water from the nearest main of the company, at such point as the company should designate, without material leakage or loss, and at the termination of the contract either to surrender and convey the connecting pipes to the company, or to remove the connection, and properly close the company's main. The contract also contained this clause:

'And in consideration of the premises, and as a material and irrevocable part of this contract, the said party of the second part, his heirs, grantees, and assigns, hereby
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 26 d1 Agosto d1 1901
    ... ... Haines, for defendants ... ROSS, ... Circuit Judge ... The ... complainant is a corporation of the state of Maine, having ... succeeded to the rights of a Kansas corporation of the same ... name in and to the property described in the bill, the object ... of ... 22, 20 Sup.Ct. 860, 44 ... L.Ed. 961. A similar ruling was made by this court in respect ... to the so-called water right in the cases of Mandell v ... San Diego Land & Town Co., 89 F. 295, and Souther et al ... v. San Diego Flume Co., not reported. On appeal from the ... judgment of this ... ...
  • Gould v. Maricopa Canal Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 26 d6 Março d6 1904
    ...6 P. 142; San Diego etc. Co. v. Sharp, 97 F. 394, 38 C.C.A. 220; Wright v. Platte Valley Irr. Co., 27 Colo. 322, 61 P. 603; Mandell v. San Diego etc. Co., 89 F. 295; Boulder and R.C.D. Co. v. Marfell, 15 Colo. 302, 25 P. 504; Paige v. Rocky Ford Canal and Irr. Co., 83 Cal. 84, 21 P. 1102, 2......
  • Gerber v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 18 d5 Setembro d5 1908
    ... ... DISTRICTS-MANDAMUS-APPORTIONMENT-DISTRIBUTED TO LAND-PRIOR ... USERS-CAPACITY OF CANAL-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-WATER ... Maricopa Canal Co., 8 Ariz. 429, ... 76 P. 598; Mandell v. San Diego Land & Town Co., 89 ... F. 295; Farnham on ... ...
  • Adams v. Twin Falls-Oakley Land & Water Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 15 d6 Julho d6 1916
    ...and maintenance of the system for the irrigating season of 1916, it is the duty of the company to furnish the water. (Mandell v. San Diego etc. Co., 89 F. 295; San Diego etc. Co. v. Sharp, 97 F. 394, 38 C. C. A. By the enforcement of clause 6 of the contract, defendants may withhold the wat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT