Riverside Irr. Dist. v. Black

• Decision Date: 07 November 1913
• Citation: Riverside Irr. Dist. v. Black, 25 Idaho 98, 136 P. 611 (Idaho 1913)
• Parties: RIVERSIDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Corporation, Respondent, v. W. A. BLACK, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

136 P. 611

25 Idaho 98

RIVERSIDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Corporation, Respondent, v. W. A. BLACK, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 7, 1913

SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

1. Evidence examined in this case, and held sufficient to support the findings and judgment.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Action for debt. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.

Griffiths & Griffiths, for Appellant.

A contract of this character is binding on the parties; and if it is binding on one party, it must certainly be binding on both parties. When defendant was precluded from having any say in determining the policy of the owner of the canal, by this agreement of his predecessor, then plaintiff was certainly precluded by that same agreement from extending defendant's liability to any other ditch or to the enlargement of this ditch. (Knowles v. New Sweden Irr Dist., 16 Idaho 217, 101 P. 81.)

The parties here have specified a certain portion of the actual cost of maintaining a specified part of the canal. Now plaintiff can no more change the portion of the ditch specified than the amount specified per acre to be paid. Neither can plaintiff include items which are not included in the agreement. And the items cannot be increased indirectly by adopting a certain policy for the ditch owner as to the operation of the ditch, if they cannot be increased directly. (Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Gess, 17 Idaho 552 106 P. 993; Long on Irrigation, sec. 132, and notes.)

Thompson & Buckner, for Respondent.

The plaintiff has purchased the rights of way, extended the ditch and expended large sums of money in constructing and enlarging the canal, and all the plaintiff has asked of the defendant is to bear his share of the cost of the maintenance and operation of the canal system from the point of original diversion to the point where his water is taken out of the ditch. The defendant wants the benefit and denies his share of the obligation incurred in securing the benefit.

There is no limitation in the reservation in the contract as to the exact amount of expenses that grantor agrees to pay, but he agrees to pay his proportionate share of keeping said ditch and headgates in good repair between the point of original diversion of all the said water and the point where the one thousand inches reserved is taken out of said ditch, whatever that amount may prove to be. (Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Gess, 17 Idaho 552, 106 P. 993; Idaho F. L. Co. v. Great Western B. S. Co., 18 Idaho 1, 107 P. 989.)

AILSHIE, C. J. Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur.

OPINION

AILSHIE, C. J.

This action was prosecuted by the Riverside Irrigation District against the appellant for the recovery of a share of the costs and expense of maintenance and operation of a portion of the irrigation company's canal. The appellant admitted that it was his duty to pay a portion of the costs and expenses of maintenance and operation but denied that he was under any obligation to pay a share of the entire cost for which this action is prosecuted. There is no substantial difference between the parties as to the facts.

It appears that Judson Spofford in the year 1892 sold to the Boise Land & Water Co. a water right and ditch for the consideration of one dollar, and the assumption by the land and water company of a mortgage of $ 6,000. The number of inches of water conveyed was 5,000, and the grantor Spofford expressly reserved to himself and his grantees, successors, and assigns a water right of 1,000 inches to be carried through this ditch or canal. The reservation contained in the Spofford grant is as follows:

"The grantor herein reserving and excepting from this conveyance 1,000 inches of water out of the original 6,000 located, as hereinbefore described, and also reserving the right to convey the same through the ditch hereinbefore described, to be taken out of said ditch above east line of sec. 15, township 4 north, of range 4 west. The grantor...