Wheatland Irr. Dist. v. Two Bar-Muleshoe Water Co.

Decision Date06 September 1967
Docket NumberNo. 3574,BAR-MULESHOE,3574
Citation431 P.2d 257
PartiesWHEATLAND IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Corporation, Appellant(Defendant below), v. TWOWATER COMPANY, Elbert L. Howe, William H. Beisner, Bernard R. McGuire, Arthur Burnett, Ellen Marle Burnett and Dora Burnett, Appellees(Plaintiffs below).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Wm. R. Jones, of Jones & Jones, Wheatland, Bard Ferrall, of Ferrall & Bloomfield, Cheyenne, for appellant.

John J. Rooney, of Rooney & Horiskey, Cheyenne, for appellees.

Before HARNSBERGER, C. J., and GRAY, McINTYRE, and PARKER, JJ.

Mr. Justice McINTYRE delivered the opinion of the court.

This case involves a suit for specific performance of a contract entered into March 1, 1900 relative to the furnishing of irrigation water from a reservoir.

Under the contract The Swan Land and Cattle Company leased some 6,000 acres to Wyoming Development Company for such period as the lands 'may be used and occupied' as the site of a reservoir for the retention and storage of water for supplying the irrigation system of Wyoming Development Company. As consideration for the use of the land, Wyoming Development Company agreed that during the term of the lease Swan, its successors and assigns, would have 'the right to use throughout the irrigation season of each and every year * * * such quantity of water as may be carried and conveyed through and by means of' two particular irrigation ditches.

The two ditches referred to were the Mule Shoe Ditch and the Two Bar Ditch. The water, according to the contract, was to be taken into these two ditches from that portion of lessee's irrigation system known as Sybille Creek. In addition, Wyoming Development Company as lessee granted to lessor and its successors the right to use throughout the irrigation season of each year such quantity of water as might be necessary for the proper irrigation of some 300 acres of land. This additional water was to be furnished and received at such point on Sybille Creek, and to be used upon such tracts, as lessor might elect.

Since the date of the contract, the lands affected by the lease agreement have by mutual agreement been reduced to 3,321.86 acres. Title to the acreage still under the lease is now held by Two Bar-Mule-shoe Water Company, one of the plaintiffs in the action for performance. The individual plaintiffs are successors in interest of The Swan Land and Cattle Company, being the present owners of those lands entitled to water under the March 1, 1900 contract. These individual plaintiffs constitute all of the stockholders of Two Bar- Muleshoe Water Company.

Wheatland Irrigation District, the defendant, is successor in interest to Wyoming Development Company. As such, it uses the 3,321.86 acres under lease for storage of water of the Big Laramie River under Permit No. 1724.

The district court of Platte County found for plaintiffs and entered a purported judgment for specific performance against defendant. The issue of the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs for past nonperformance of their contract has not been tried, the parties having stipulated the matter of damages would be decided later.

The lease agreement contained a description of the two ditches referred to and then provided it is 'distinctly' understood and agreed that the quantity of water to be furnished shall be that quantity which the ditches can carry 'with their present dimensions, as hereinabove stated.' Thus, an intention to fix in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • U.S. v. Hunt
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 21 de março de 1975
    ...parties in action. Generally, until it is entered, the judgment is not final, or subject to appeal. Wheatland Irrigation District v. Two Bar-Muleshoe Water Company, 431 P.2d 257 (Wyo.1967). But the time for appeal between parties to the suit begins to run from the time the Court overrules a......
  • Bowen v. Smith
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 28 de agosto de 1992
    ...course of action and reaction. Anderson v. Wyoming Development Co., 60 Wyo. 417, 154 P.2d 318 (1944); Wheatland Irr. Dist. v. Two Bar-Muleshoe Water Co., 431 P.2d 257 (Wyo.1967); Wheatland Irrigation Dist. v. Two Bar-Muleshoe Water Co., 521 P.2d 1334 (Wyo.1974); State ex rel. Squaw Mountain......
  • General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River System, In re
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 30 de novembro de 1990
    ...on reh. 562 P.2d 287 (1977); Spriggs v. Pioneer Carissa Gold Mines, Inc., 453 P.2d 400 (Wyo.1969); Wheatland Irrigation District v. Two Bar-Muleshoe Water Company, 431 P.2d 257 (Wyo.1967). This rule permits an appeal to be taken from a decision that does not adjudicate all claims or the rig......
  • Olmstead v. Cattle, Inc.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 6 de outubro de 1975
    ...Wyo., 455 P.2d 664 (1969); Spriggs v. Pioneer Carissa Gold Mines, Inc., Wyo., 453 P.2d 400 (1969); Wheatland Irrigation District v. Two Bar-Muleshoe Water Company, Wyo., 431 P.2d 257 (1967); State ex rel. Pacific Intermountain Express, Inc. v. District Court of Second Judicial District, Wyo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT