State v. Washington Irr. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1906 |
| Citation | 41 Wash. 283,83 P. 308 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. KRUTZ v. WASHINGTON IRR. CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Frank H. Rudkin, Judge.
Mandamus by the state, on the relation of Carrie A. Krutz, against the Washington Irrigation Company. From a judgment of dismissal the relator appeals. Affirmed.
See 80 P. 803.
W. H Bogle and H. J. Snively, for appellant.
Ira P Englehart and E. F. Blaine, for respondent.
This is an action in mandamus. The affidavit in support of the application for the writ states that the Washington Irrigation Company is a corporation, and is the owner of an irrigating canal commonly known as 'Sunnyside Canal'; that it is a common carrier of water for irrigation purposes, and is charged with the duty of furnishing water for irrigation of lands lying under said canal, upon reasonable compensation being tendered and made therefor; that the relator is the owner of certain described lands lying under said canal, amounting to 320 acres more or less, which are arid and dependent upon irrigation to produce agricultural crops; that the relator holds a water deed and water right contract from and with said corporation for water to irrigate her said lands, which contract was executed in November, 1902; that said contract provides that she shall pay annually in advance to the irrigation company, on the first Monday in May of each year from the date of the contract, the sum of $1 per acre, and, in case of default in such payment for the period of 30 days after the same shall become due, the irrigation company shall have the right and option to refuse to furnish water until such rental and arrearages shall be paid in full; that the contract further provides that the irrigation company shall deliver to her a lateral or flume, to be connected with its main or branch canal nearest her land along the line of its right of way at such point as to the company may seem most practicable, which lateral flume shall be located by the company and shall be constructed and maintained by the relator. The contract further requires that the company shall construct and maintain the necessary works of delivery, except the lateral flume, and shall place and maintain at the point of delivery suitable measuring boxes or gates. The affidavit further states that one branch of the canal is about one-half mile from the north line of the relator's lands, and another branch runs near the west line thereof; that, desiring to cultivate her lands during the year 1904, she notified the company about March 23d of that year to designate the point on the canal from which the lateral to her land should be constructed, and to locate the lateral; that she thereupon tendered to the company the sum of $320 in payment of the annual rental for water for the year 1904, and demanded the delivery of water to her lands during the season of said year; that thereupon the company did indicate that she should receive water through a certain small lateral running across the lands of one Eaton, but refused and still refuses to furnish her with any water whatever, except on condition that she shall pay to the company the sum of $320 claimed by it for water rental for the year 1903, as well as the further sum of $320 as rental for the year 1904; that no water was delivered during the year 1903, and that the company never, at any time, prior to March 28, 1904, designated the point from which a lateral to be constructed by the relator should receive water from the canal, and did not locate such lateral; that it has never at any time constructed the necessary works of delivery, and has not provided measuring boxes or gates. On the above facts the relator asked the issuance of the writ of mandate to compel the irrigation company to deliver water to her lands for the year 1904, and also to compel it to provide suitable measuring boxes or gates at the point of delivery of the water upon her lands. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Washington v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...a duty fixed by law; no other adequate remedy being afforded, the duty being clear and undisputable. State ex rel. Krutz v. Wash. Irr. Co., 41 Wash. 283, 83 Pac. 308, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1012. The form of the action is not controlling. The court must look beyond to the purpose of the action (S......
-
Lewis v. Mountain Home Co-op. Irr. Co.
... ... contracts. (19 Cyc. of L. 742; Dane v. Derby, 54 Me ... 95, 89 Am. Dec. 722, 732; State v. Republican River ... Bridge Co., 20 Kan. 404; People v. Dulaney, 96 ... Ill. 503; Tobey v. Hakes, 54 Conn. 274, 1 Am. St ... 114, 7 A. 551; ... Rem., 3d ed., sec. 25; 2 Spelling, Inj. & Extr. Rem., sec ... 1379; 3 Kinney on Irr. & W. R., 3024; 26 Cyc. 356; State ... v. Washington Irr. Co., 41 Wash. 283, 111 Am. St. 1019, ... 83 P. 308, 309; Miller v. Imperial Water Co., 156 ... Cal. 27, 103 P. 227, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 372; ... ...
-
State v. Twin Falls Canal Co.
... ... Rev. Codes; 26 Cyc. 378; Haugen v. Albina Light & Water ... Co., 21 Ore. 411, 28 P. 244, 14 L. R. A. 424; ... Merrill v. South Side Irr. Co., 112 Cal. 426, 44 P ... 720; Cozzens v. North Fork Ditch Co., 2 Cal.App ... 404, 84 P. 342; Standard v. Farmers' High Line etc ... judgment requires proof upon the part of the plaintiff in ... order to justify the issuance of a writ of mandate. ( ... State v. Washington Irr. Co. , 41 Wash. 283, 111 Am ... St. 1019, 83 P. 308; Florida Central R. R. Co. v ... State , 31 Fla. 482, 34 Am. St. 30, 13 So. 103, 20 L ... ...
-
State of Washington v. General Fruit Corporation
...a remedy to compel performance of duty fixed by law; no other adequate remedy being afforded. State ex rel. Krutz v. Washington Irrigation Company, 41 Wash. 283, 83 P. 308, 111 Am. St. Rep. 1019. The defendant relies upon State of Washington ex rel. Markham v. Seattle, Rainier Valley Railwa......