North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., No. 1198.

CourtU.S. District Court — District of Idaho
Writing for the CourtCUSHMAN
Citation12 F.2d 311
PartiesNORTH SIDE CANAL CO., Limited, v. TWIN FALLS CANAL CO., et al.
Decision Date19 April 1926
Docket NumberNo. 1198.

12 F.2d 311 (1926)

NORTH SIDE CANAL CO., Limited,
v.
TWIN FALLS CANAL CO., et al.

No. 1198.

District Court, D. Idaho, S. D.

April 19, 1926.


Walters & Parry, of Twin Falls, Idaho, for plaintiff.

H. E. Ray and B. E. Stoutemyer, both of Boise, Idaho, for defendant Work.

CUSHMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff alleges appropriation and right to prior use of certain amounts of the waters of Snake river, alleged to have been by it and its

12 F.2d 312
predecessors in interest, upon several different dates, diverted in the state of Idaho, and in the waters of which stream it is alleged the defendants claim some right, title, or interest. The prayer of the bill is: That plaintiff be decreed, for use upon certain lands, 3,300 second feet of such waters, with certain priority dates; that defendants be required to set up in this cause such claims as they may have to such waters; that the right, title, interest, and claim of each defendant be determined; and that those of the defendants having rights in such waters of priority dates subsequent to those claimed by the plaintiff be enjoined from asserting any claims adverse to those of plaintiff

It appears from the bill that in 1913 the plaintiff and certain of the defendants were decreed rights in the waters of this stream; one of the defendants being the Secretary of the Interior of the United States, who was awarded the use of 1,725 second feet of water, diverted at Minidoka dam. Plaintiff now seeks to establish its right, title, and right to prior use of certain diversions not covered by that decree, and in certain other respects asks a decree confirmatory of the former decree. It is alleged that the plaintiff and certain of the defendants are citizens of Idaho, that the defendant Hubert W. Work, Secretary of the Interior, is a citizen of Colorado. The Secretary has removed the cause to this court, alleging that the suit involves a property right of the United States in the waters of Snake river, that the suit is one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that there is diversity of citizenship, and a separable controversy. Plaintiff moves to remand.

Plaintiff cites: Twin Falls Canal Co. v. Foote (C. C.) 192 F. 583; City of Stanfield v. Umatilla River Water Users' Ass'n (C. C.) 192 F. 596; Furey v. Taylor, 127 P. 676, 22 Idaho, 605; Frost v. Alturas Water Co., 81 P. 996, 11 Idaho, 294; Simkins Federal Practice, p. 1156; Lomax v. Foster Lbr. Co. et. al., 174 F. 959, 99 C. C. A. 463; In re Silvies River (D. C.) 199 F. 495; Davey v. Yolo Water & Power Co. et al. (D. C.) 211 F. 345.

In addition, defendants cite the following cases: Whiffin v. Cole (D. C.) 264 F. 252; Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co., 19 S. Ct. 233, 172 U. S. 401, 43 L. Ed. 492; Moon on Removal of Causes, pp. 259 to 263; Loop v. Winter's Estate (C. C.) 115 F. 362; Camp v. Field (C. C.) 189 F. 285; Hughes, Fed. Proc. (2d Ed.) par. 132, p. 380; Dishon v. Railroad Co., 133 F. 471, 66 C. C. A. 345; Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. So. R. R. Co., 153 F. 122, 82 C. C. A. 256, 11 Ann. Cas. 766; Frost et al. v. Idaho Irrigation Co., 114 P. 38, 19 Idaho, 372; Taylor v. Hulett et al., 97 P. 37, 15 Idaho, 265, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 535; McMullen v. Hallock Cattle Co. (C. C.) 193 F. 282; 3 Foster, Federal Prac. (6th Ed.) par. 540; Nelson v. Hennessey (C. C.) 33 F. 113; Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 44 F. 456; Rivers v. Bradley (C. C.) 53 F. 305; Hukill v. Maysville, etc., Co. (C. C.) 72 F. 745; Prince v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (C. C.) 98 F. 1; Mahon v. Somers (C. C.) 112 F. 174; Loop v. Winter's Estate (C. C.) 115 F. 362; Sidway v. Missouri Land, etc., Co. (C. C.) 116 F. 381; Kelly v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 122 F. 286; Carothers v. McKinley Mining & Smelting Co. (C. C.) 122 F. 305; Bryce v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C.) 122 F. 709; Henry v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 132 F. 715; Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen, 135 F. 650, 68 C. C. A. 288; Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank, 29 S. Ct. 366, 212 U. S. 364, 53 L. Ed. 551; Axline v. Toledo, etc., Co. (C. C.) 138 F. 169; Curtis v. Cleveland, etc. Co. (C. C.) 140 F. 777; Iowa Lillovet Gold Min. Co. v. Bliss (C. C.) 144 F. 446; Cella v. Brown, 144 F. 742, 75 C. C. A. 608; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stepp (C. C.) 151 F. 908; Floyt v. Shenango Furnace Co. (C. C.) 186 F. 539; McAllister v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. (D. C.) 198 F. 660; Price v. Southern Power Co. (D. C.) 206 F. 496; Richardson v. Southern Idaho Water Power Co. (D. C.) 209 F. 949; English v. Supreme Conclave I. O. of H. (D. C.) 235 F. 630; Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, 26 L. Ed. 514; Hervey v. Illinois Midland Ry. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 6,434; Carraher v. Brennan, Fed. Cas. No. 2,441; Girardey v. Moore, Fed Cas. No. 5,462; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Chicago, P. & S. W. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 4,665; Sheldon v. Keokuk N. L. Packet Co. (C. C.) 1 F. 789; Corbin v. Boies (C. C.) 18 F. 3; Atlantic & V. Fertilizing Co. v. Carter (C. C.) 88 F. 707; Swan v. Mansfield, etc., Co., 7 Ohio Dec. 669, Manufacturers' Commercial Co. v. Brown Alaska Co. (C. C.) 148 F. 308; S. Clare Mower v. J. B. Bond (D. C.) 6 F.(2d) 890, decided by Judge Dietrich; Burley v. United States, 179 F. 1, 102 C. C. A. 429, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 807; Winters v. United States, 28 S. Ct. 207, 207 U. S. 564, 52 L. Ed. 340; Wyoming v. Colorado, 42 S. Ct. 552, 259 U. S. 419, 66 L. Ed. 999; New York Canal Co. v. Bond (C. C. A.) 265 F. 228;

12 F.2d 313
Id. (D. C.) 273 F. 825; Payette-Boise Water Users' Ass'n v. Cole (D. C.) 263 F. 734; Quigg v. Dietz (unreported); Whiffin v. Cole (C. C. A.) 264 F. 252; Blevins v. Hines (D. C.) 264 F. 1005; Taylor v. Hewitt et al., 97 P. 37, 15 Idaho, 265, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 535; Frost et al. v. Idaho Irrigation Co., 114 P. 38, 19 Idaho, 372

The present suit is not removable under R. S. § 643, Comp. St. § 1015, for the Secretary is neither an officer of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • In re Green River Drainage Area, No. C-7-56.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • 7 Diciembre 1956
    ...similarities, and not unmindful of the contrary decision in North Side Canal Co., Limited v. Twin Falls Canal Co., D. C.Idaho S.D.1926, 12 F.2d 311, I am of the opinion that suits for the general determination of water rights are more in the nature of suits to quiet title. When the federal ......
  • Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. American Ditch Ass'n, 5445
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 2 Junio 1931
    ...the reclamation service. Judge Cushman denied a motion to remand in a suit similar to this (North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 12 F.2d 311), but herein no motion to remove was made. The precise question here involved was not therein considered. [50 Idaho 749] If the government to......
  • North Side Canal Co., Ltd., a Corp. v. Idaho Farm Co., 6721
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 26 Octubre 1939
    ...Co., 36 Idaho 622, 213 P. 344; Andrews v. North Side Canal Co., 52 Idaho 117, 12 P.2d 263; North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 12 F.2d 311. [4] Sections 41-1726 to 41-1735, I. C. A. [5] The State contract provided that the construction company was to hold the entire authorized cap......
  • United States v. State of Cal., No. CV 80-27-EDP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 7 Octubre 1980
    ...that of the state courts...." The decision of the Southern District of Idaho in Northside Canal Co., Ltd. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., et al., 12 F.2d 311 (D.C.Idaho, 1926), deserves passing Plaintiff lodged a bill in equity against the defendant noted above and others, including the Secretary ......
4 cases
  • In re Green River Drainage Area, No. C-7-56.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • 7 Diciembre 1956
    ...similarities, and not unmindful of the contrary decision in North Side Canal Co., Limited v. Twin Falls Canal Co., D. C.Idaho S.D.1926, 12 F.2d 311, I am of the opinion that suits for the general determination of water rights are more in the nature of suits to quiet title. When the federal ......
  • Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. American Ditch Ass'n, 5445
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 2 Junio 1931
    ...the reclamation service. Judge Cushman denied a motion to remand in a suit similar to this (North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 12 F.2d 311), but herein no motion to remove was made. The precise question here involved was not therein considered. [50 Idaho 749] If the government to......
  • North Side Canal Co., Ltd., a Corp. v. Idaho Farm Co., 6721
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 26 Octubre 1939
    ...Co., 36 Idaho 622, 213 P. 344; Andrews v. North Side Canal Co., 52 Idaho 117, 12 P.2d 263; North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 12 F.2d 311. [4] Sections 41-1726 to 41-1735, I. C. A. [5] The State contract provided that the construction company was to hold the entire authorized cap......
  • United States v. State of Cal., No. CV 80-27-EDP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 7 Octubre 1980
    ...that of the state courts...." The decision of the Southern District of Idaho in Northside Canal Co., Ltd. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., et al., 12 F.2d 311 (D.C.Idaho, 1926), deserves passing Plaintiff lodged a bill in equity against the defendant noted above and others, including the Secretary ......

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