People ex rel. Standart v. Farmers' High-Line Canal & Reservoir Co.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1898 |
| Citation | People ex rel. Standart v. Farmers' High-Line Canal & Reservoir Co., 54 P. 626, 25 Colo. 202 (Colo. 1898) |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. STANDART v. FARMERS' HIGH-LINE CANAL & RESERVOIR CO. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to court of appeals.
Peremptory mandamus by the people, on the relation of Stephen H Standart, assignee of Crippen, Lawrence & Co., against the Farmers' High-Line Canal & Reservoir Company. A judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the court of appeals (45 P 543), and he appeals. Reversed.
This action was originally instituted in the district court of Jefferson county by the plaintiff in error, Standart, to compel the defendant in error to furnish 25 inches of water during the year 1894, to be used on a portion of section 11 township 3 S., range 69 W. He, as assignee of Crippen Lawrence & Co., claims title to the land through divers mesne conveyances from one Eli Allen, and the use of the water as an appurtenant thereto. The facts that are material to a determination of the case, as they appear from the pleadings and evidence, are, in substance, as follows:
Eli Allen and 15 other farmers, residents of Jefferson county, in 1863 organized a corporation and constructed an irrigating ditch for the purpose of taking water from Clear Creek to irrigate their lands. In 1872 the ditch and the rights of the company passed to the Golden City & Arapahoe Ditch Company, a corporation organized by the stockholders of the old company. The capital stock consisted of 100 shares, each of which represented 12 inches of water. Eli Allen was the owner of 7 1/2 shares of this stock. On March 20, 1872, the company leased the ditch to William Bomberger, Francis Gallup, and William A. Rand, parties doing business as William Bomberger & Co., during the existence of its charter, and any renewal thereof, upon condition, among other things, that they would enlarge the ditch to not less than three times its previous capacity; and also construct, by or before June 1, 1872, a branch of said ditch, called the 'South Branch,' beginning at Dry Creek, and following the most practicable route, and ending at the county line; and also to furnish free of all charges to each of the stockholders, 12 inches of water for each share of stock held by him. Thereafter, within the specified time, the South Branch was constructed. It extended east from Dry Creek, and passed north of the land in question, which was known as 'Eli Allen's Home Farm.' There was also another branch of the ditch constructed east from Ralston Creek, and called the 'Gallup Extension.' The lease was recorded in Book L, p. 344, of the Jefferson county records. On March 22, 1873, the following agreement was entered into: 'This indenture, made and entered into this 22d day of March, A. D. 1873, by and between the Golden City & Arapahoe Ditch Company, of the county of Jefferson, of the first part, and * * * William Bomberger & Company, of the county of Arapahoe, of the second part, and * * * Eli Allen [and others], * * * stockholders in the said ditch company, and owners of land under said ditch, of the third part, witnesseth: That whereas, the said William Bomberger, Francis Gallup, and William A. Rand, by their said name and firm style of William Bomberger & Co., by a certain written agreement, made between said Golden City & Arapahoe Ditch Company and the said William Bomberger & Co., on the 20th day of March, A. D. 1872, and recorded on page 344 of volume No. L of the records of Jefferson county, territory of Colorado, in the office of the county clerk and recorder of said county, did become the lessess of the right of way and ditch of said company lying in said Jefferson county, and are at this time in possession of said ditch and right of way under and by virtue of said lease; and whereas, it is desired to make certain other and further agreements for control and management of said ditch, and furnishing the water for irrigation for the lands owned at this time by the said several parties of the third part from the said ditch, as well for the accommodation of the said parties of the first and second part as for the said parties of the third part, severally, and to each and every of their several assigns and vendees, lessees, and tenants of the said lands as now held severally by said several parties of the third part, under said ditch, sufficient water from said ditch for the irrigation of the lands now owned or occupied, or cultivated, or which may be hereafter cultivated, by him or his assigns, as any part of the lands now owned or occupied by him under said ditch, upon the terms and conditions hereinbelow set forth, which said lands so hereby intended to be irrigated from said ditch are set forth by the numbers thereof in a schedule annexed hereto, and marked
We have stated so much of the contract as is material to the questions now presented. The portion omitted provided in case Bomberger & Co., or whoever might be in control or management of the ditch, should refuse to comply with the terms of the contract as to furnishing the water, that, upon...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Sanderson v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd.
... ... ( People ... v. Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co., ... case." (26 Cyc. 168; Territory ex rel. Crosby v ... Crum, 13 Okla. 9, 73 P. 297.) ... ...
-
State ex rel. City of Marion v. Marion Light & Heating Co.
...117 Am. St. Rep. 370, and cases cited; Seymour Water Co. v. Seymour, 163 Ind. 131, 70 N. E. 514, and cases cited; People ex rel. v. Canal Co., 25 Colo. 202, 54 Pac. 626, and cases cited; Woodbury v. Tampa Waterworks Co., 57 Fla. 249, 49 South. 556, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1039;Southern Express ......
-
In re Drainage District No. 3, Ada County
... ... for drainage district can be levied against canal ... right of way owned by United States ... in the ditch." (People ex rel. Standart v ... Farmers' High Line S ... ...
-
Murphy v. Kerr
... ... reservoir, power house, and real estate used in connection ... in trust for the people. Wiel, in his Work on Water Rights in ... the ... Abalos, 18 N.M. 681, 140 P. 1044; Farmers' etc., ... Co. v. Rayado, etc., Co., 28 N.M ... in this instance is not a ditch or canal as an easement, but ... an easement for a ditch ... 442, 170 P ... 1135; Farmers' High Line Canal & Res. Co. v. New ... Hampshire Real ... 33 P. 144, 36 Am.St.Rep. 280; People ex rel. Standart v ... Farmers' High Line Canal & Res ... ...