Reno Smelting, Milling & Reduction Works v. Stevenson
Decision Date | 09 April 1889 |
Docket Number | 1,289. |
Citation | 21 P. 317,20 Nev. 269 |
Parties | RENO SMELTING, MILLING & REDUCTION WORKS v. STEVENSON et al. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Washoe county; R. R. BIGELOW, Judge.
Action by the Reno Smelting, Milling & Reduction Works against Stevenson and others, to restrain the diversion of water. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
The Attorney General, R. H. Lindsay, and T. H. Wells, for appellants.
R. S Mesick, for respondent.
This action is brought for the purpose of determining rights to the use of water upon the following facts: The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the reduction of ores. It is the owner in fee of 10 acres of land on the Truckee river, upon which its reduction works are situated. Long prior to the commission of the grievances alleged in the complaint it built a dam in the river at a point above its own land, but with the consent of those whose lands were affected thereby. The water is used to furnish power to operate machinery at the works, and is conveyed from the dam by means of a ditch and flume. The height of the dam is such that the waters of the river flow over it about 10 inches above its crest, and unless the water is maintained at this height, sufficient cannot be diverted to fill the ditch and flume. The state of Nevada is the owner in fee of the land next below that of the plaintiff on the river. The insane asylum of the state is situated thereon, and the defendants, by virtue of their offices of governor, comptroller, and treasurer of the state respectively, are commissioners for the care of the insane, and, as such, control the affairs of the asylum. In their capacity as commissioners they have caused the pond of water made by the dam of the plaintiff to be tapped by a flume, and thereby carried a portion of the waters to the asylum grounds for motive power. The district court enjoined this diversion of the waters. Plaintiff upon this appeal neither claims nor disclaims a right by virtue of a prior appropriation, but urges an affirmance of the judgment upon the sole ground that it is a riparian proprietor. and, as such, is entitled to the natural flow of the water through its land.
The rights of riparian proprietors are thus stated by Chancellor Kent: 3 Kent, Comm. 439. "It is wholly immaterial," says Judge STORY in Tyler v. Wilkinson, 4 Mason, 400, But the rule of the common law has never been applied by the courts of this state, except as hereinafter mentioned. The condition of settlers upon the public lands of the state necessitated a diversion of running waters from their natural channels for agricultural purposes, and our courts have, with the exception stated, protected the first appropriator to the extent of his appropriation to any beneficial use, and no obligation has been imposed upon him to return the water to its natural channel. The history of this subject is clearly stated by Mr. Justice FIELD in Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall. 510, as follows: Referring to the rule as above stated, and which accords to the different riparian proprietors an equal right to the use of the waters of the stream, the opinion proceeds: And in Basey v. Gallagher, Id. 670, after referring to the views above quoted, the court say: In the case of Vansickle v. Haines, 7 Nev. 249, it was held that the patentee of the government succeeded to all of its rights, and among these was the right to have the water of a stream theretofore diverted returned to its natural channel. In that case the patent of the government had been issued prior to the passage of the act of congress of July 26, 1866. The court considered the statute prospective in its nature, and that it did not apply to that patent. Subsequently, in the case of Broder v. Water Co., 101 U.S. 274, the supreme court of the United States declared that the statute was rather a voluntary recognition of a pre-existing right of possession, constituting a valid claim to its continued use, than the establishment of a new one; and, following this view, the construction given to the statute in Vansickle v. Haines was overruled in Jones v. Adams, 19 Nev. 78, 6 P. 442. Again, in Vansickle v. Haines, the court considered that the language of the statute adopting the common law precluded a consideration of the question of its applicability. The statute is as follows: "The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or in conflict with the constitution and laws of the United States, or the constitution and laws of this state, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this state." Gen. St. 3021. This was substantially the statute when Vansickle v. Haines was decided. The statute is silent upon the subject of the applicability of the common law, but we think the term "common law of England" was employed in the sense in which it is generally understood in this country, and that the intention of the legislature was to adopt only so much of it as was applicable to our condition. An examination of the authorities will render this apparent.
In Court. Comm. § 16, the author says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hirzel
... ... England. ( Reno Smelting Works v. Stevenson, 20 Nev ... 269, ... ...
-
Hough v. Porter
... ... 78, 6 P. 442, 3 Am.St.Rep. 788; Reno ... S. Works v. Stevenson, 20 Nev. 269, 21 ... 239, 33 P. 678; ... North Powder Milling Co. v. Coughanour, 34 Or. 9, 54 ... P ... ...
-
In re Hood River
... ... in good faith in the construction of works ... for the application of water, the right ... Supreme Court of that state, in Reno Smelting, etc., Co ... v. Stevenson, 20 ... Smelting, Milling & Reduction Works v. Stevenson, 20 ... ...
-
California-Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland C. Co.
...442, 3 Am. St. Rep. 788 (1885), adopted the rule of prior appropriation. See, too, Reno Smelting, Milling & Reduction Works v. Stevenson, 20 Nev. 269, 21 P. 317, 4 L. R. A. 60, 19 Am. St. Rep. 364 (1889). In Brown v. Chase, 125 Wash. 542, 217 P. 23, 25 (1923), the court, departing from earl......