North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., No. 1198.
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Writing for the Court | CUSHMAN |
Citation | 12 F.2d 311 |
Parties | NORTH SIDE CANAL CO., Limited, v. TWIN FALLS CANAL CO., et al. |
Decision Date | 19 April 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 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
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;
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-
In re Green River Drainage Area, No. C-7-56.
...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
...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
...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.
...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 ......
-
In re Green River Drainage Area, No. C-7-56.
...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
...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
...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.
...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 ......