State v. Stampfly

• Decision Date: 19 July 1912
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. OLDING et al. v. STAMPFLY.

125 P. 148

69 Wash. 368

STATE ex rel. OLDING et al. v. STAMPFLY.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 19, 1912

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; Ralph Kauffman, Judge.

Contempt proceedings by the State, on the relation of John G. Olding and another, against Samuel Stampfly. Judgment for relators and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Pruyn &amp Hoeffler, of Ellensburg, for appellant.

Mires &amp Whitfield, of Ellensburg, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

On December 1, 1891, one John Clifton entered into a contract with the state of Washington for the purchase of the southwest quarter of section 16, in township 18 north, of range 19 east, of the Willamette meridian, agreeing to pay therefor the sum of $3,600 in 10 annual installments of $360 each, with interest on the deferred payments at the rate of 6 per centum per annum. The lands are riparian, so to speak, to a perennial stream, known as 'Nanum creek,' which stream, when left in its natural state, flows over and across the lands in a well-defined channel. Clifton settled on the lands prior to the time he contracted to purchase the same from the state, and from the time of his earliest settlement used water from the stream for the purposes of irrigating them. Other settlers on lands riparian to the stream, some of whom were prior and some of whom were subsequent in time to Clifton, also used water from the stream for irrigating purposes, which use gradually increased until all the water of the stream was so taken and used. In August, 1897, differences arose between these users as to their respective rights, and an action was begun by one James Ferguson, as plaintiff, to determine such rights, in which all persons using water from the creek, or thought to have rights therein, were made parties defendant, among whom was John Clifton. Clifton answered the complaint in the action, setting up his possession of this particular quarter section and his right thereto in virtue of his contract with the state, averring that he had diverted water from Nanum creek and used the same for their irrigation as early as 1885, and laid claim to a specific quantity thereof, based on his appropriation and rights acquired thereunder. The action was subsequently tried out, and on May 6, 1901, a decree was entered therein in which the rights of all the landowners to the use of water from the creek were adjudicated and determined; Clifton being awarded the right to divert and use for irrigating the quarter section described a fixed quantity thereof. Subsequent to the trial of the action, Clifton assigned his interests in the contract to one John Crocker who procured a deed for the lands from the state to himself on October 10, 1902. Thereafter, and on October 3, 1904, Crocker conveyed to Samuel Stampfly, the appellant in the present proceeding, the north half of such quarter section, 'together with an undivided one-half of the waters awarded to the S.W. 1/4 of section 16, township 18, range 19 E., by the decree entered in the case of James Ferguson v. The United States Bank et al.,' being the decree hereinbefore referred to.

Subsequent to his purchase of the property, Stampfly used water from Nanum creek in excess of one-half of that awarded Clifton in the decree mentioned conveyed to him by the deed from Crocker. Proceedings in contempt were instituted against him charging him with violating the provisions of the decree, and, on a hearing had thereon, he was adjudged guilty of contempt, and sentenced to pay a fine. From the judgment and sentence, this appeal is prosecuted.

The appellant contends that the water rights appurtenant to the land purchased by him from Crocker were not legally determined by the decree in the case of Ferguson v. United States National Bank et al. Attention is called to the fact that this court has held in Benton v. Johncox, 17 Wash. 277, 49 P. 495, 39 L. R. A. 107, 61 Am. St. Rep. 912 and Nesalhous v. Walker, 45 Wash. 621, 88 P. 1032, that the common-law doctrine of riparian rights prevails in this state with reference to streams flowing across lands not public lands of the United States, and that such streams cannot be diverted from their natural courses by mere prior appropriation to the detriment of owners of such lands; and it is argued that school lands, reserved by the government of the United States for the use of the common schools of the state that ...