Riverside Irrigation District v. Black
Idaho Supreme Court
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. 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.
Read the full summary
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. 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…
1Opinion of the CourtAilshie, 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…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Knowles v. New Sweden Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Idaho Fruit Land Co. v. Great Western Beet Sugar Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1910
- Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District v. GessIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- Adams v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist.Idaho Supreme Court · 1953