« ПретходнаНастави »
Anthony v Savage.
Utah.. 674 Cruz v County of Los Angeles.Cal... 760
Baker y McAllister.
Barnett v Knight.
Wash. 552 Denver, City of, v Dunsmore.. Col... 841
.. Wash. 794
Denver, City of, v Mullin.... Col... 852
Col... 121 Denver & R. G. Ry. Co. v Otis.Col... 120
Black v Merrill.
Cal... 137 Dundee Mfg. &c, Co. v Hughes
Bode v Holtz..
Cal. 366 Dundee Mfg. &c. Oo. v School
.Cal... 897 Dist. (U. S. Cir. Ot.). Or.... 241
Brazee v Schofield.
. Nev.. 414
Cary v McIntyre.
Col... 117 Golden Gate 0. Hy. M. Co. v
.Nev .. 405
Co. (U. S. Dist. Ct.). Or.... 303 Mooney v People.
Kimball v Stormer.
Cal... 371 Oregon R’y. & N. Co. v Galli-
(U. S. Dist. Ct.)
Or.... 88 People v City Bank of Lead-
MacNaughton v S. P. O. R. R.
People v Com, of Grand Co.. Col .. 113
People v Majors.
McCoy v Ayers..
Wash. 564 People v Meiggs Wharf Co... Cal..: 287
McCoy v Byrd..
Cal... 139 People v Mess.....
Mecue v Tunstead
Cal.. 896 People v Mooney,
McGuire v Logus..
Or.... 825 People v Munn.
McKelvey v Crockett. Nev 37 People v Pierson.
McLaughlin v Upton. Wy... 57 People v Reese.
McLeod v Port Blakeley M.
People v Riley.
Wash. 798 People v Robinson
Meyer v Utah &c. R. R. Oo... Utah., 471 People v Ross....
. Cal... 291
Miles v McCallan..
Ariz .. 689 People v Stapleton.
Staab v Hersch..
N. M. 425
United States v Hailey Idaho. 324
Weise v Barker.
Wetmore v Rupe
White v Holland
Nev .. 671
Williams y Supervisors Cal... 732
Rosenthal v Schneider. Wash. 785
Rupert v Com. of Alturas Co.Idaho. 15
WEST COAST REPORTER.
WHOLE No. 9.
FEBRUARY 28, 1884.
VOL. II. No. 1.
RIPARIAN RIGHTS—THE WEST COAST DOCTRINE.
Continued. 3. The Property and Other Rights in General of the Prior Appropriator.—The doctrine is settled by repeated decisions, that an appropriator who has constructed a ditch and is thereby diverting the water of a stream, or any portion of it, for some beneficial purpose, obtains and has no property whatever in the water of such stream while it is flowing in its natural channel or bed, and before it reaches the “head” 'or commencement of the ditch where the diversion begins. It has even been questioned whether his right to the water after diversion, and while flowing through the ditch, is really a “property," or only an exclusive right of use; but it is settled beyond all question, that he has no property in the water of a natural stream, flowing in its natural current and channel, before the diversion into his ditch or other structure takes place. He can maintain no actions based upon such property. In fact, private property in the running waters of a natural stream, flowing in its natural channel, can not be acquired, separate and distinct from a property in the land through and over which the stream runs.In Parks Canal and M. Co. v. Hoyt," it was held that the water flowing in the stream above the head of the appropriator's ditch is realty, a part of the land, and does not become in any sense his property until it passes into his control in his ditch or other works. He can not, therefore, maintain an action upon an implied contract, as for the price of personal property sold, against a person who has wrongfully diverted the water from the stream above the head of his ditch. His legal remedy for such an injury is by an action on the case to recover damages for the tort. In Los Angeles v. Baldwin," although it
Lower King's River W. Co. v. King's Donald v. Askew, 29 Id. 200; Kidd v. River etc. Co., 60 Cal. 408; Parks Canal Laird, 15 Id. 161; Ortman v. Dixon, 13 Id. and M. Co. v. Hoyt, 57 Id. 44; City of Los 33. Angeles v. Baldwiu, 53 Id. 469; Nevada 2 57 Id. 44. County etc. Co. v. Kidd, 37 Id. 282; Mc. 53 Id. 469. No. 9-1