Meagher v. Hardenbrook
Decision Date | 28 December 1891 |
Citation | 28 P. 451,11 Mont. 385 |
Parties | MEAGHER v. HARDENBROOK et al. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Deer Lodge county; D. M. DURFEE, Judge.
Action by Patrick H. Meagher against Charles K. Hardenbrook, John Spencer, and others to determine the rights of the parties to the use of the water of a certain stream. From a finding and judgment determining such rights defendants Spencer and others appeal. Affirmed.
Cole & Whitehill, for appellants.
Robinson & Stapleton and Forbis & Forbis, for respondent.
Action to determine the several rights of plaintiff and 40 persons named as defendants, in and to the waters of "Race-Track Creek," a natural stream of water situate in Deer Lodge county, tributary to Deer Lodge river. The action was tried by the court sitting without a jury, and by findings made in writing, and judgment accordingly, the court found and determined the respective rights of all the parties to the action in and to the waters of said creek, and also the relation of such water-rights to one another as to priority. All parties having set up their respective claims to certain portions of the water of said creek by pleading, a stipulation was made by them through their counsel to the effect that at the trial each party, whether plaintiff or defendant, should be deemed to have denied all allegations of the pleadings of every other party to the action claiming right to any of the waters of said creek, and that each party might introduce evidence "to show non-appropriation, non-user, or abandonment by the plaintiff or any of the defendants."
The questions brought here for review by this appeal arose between certain defendants. The court found and adjudged that defendants C. K. Hardenbrook and R. S. Kelly were entitled to 400 inches of the waters of said creek, by reason of an appropriation thereof made in the year 1869, which finding and judgment made the water-right of defendants Harden-brook and Kelley the fourth in the order of appropriations. From this portion of the judgment certain other defendants, whose rights were adjudged to be subsequent to that of Hardenbrook and Kelley, have appealed. The findings of fact by the court in relation to the water-rights of defendants Hardenbrook and Kelley, upon which the court pronounced judgment in their favor, are as follows: The point of contention on the part of appellants is that upon said facts found it was error to adjudge that the appropriation...
To continue reading
Request your trial