Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. Southworth
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from District Court of Arapahoe County. The Pacts in this case necessary to a correct understanding of the opinions are sufficiently stated therein.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court of Arapahoe County. The Pacts in this case necessary to a correct understanding of the opinions are sufficiently stated therein. The constitutional and statutory provisions considered at length by the court are as follows: Const., art. 16, § 5: “The water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated, within the state of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject to appropriation as hereinafter provided.” “ Sec. 6. The right to divert unappropriated waters of any…
1ConcurrenceElliott, J.
The constitutional question involved in this controversy is one of vital importance to the welfare of our people, and the determination thereof by this court must be far-reaching in its consequences to those engaged in agricultural pursuits. Hence, while concurring in the opinion of Mr. Justice Hayt, a further expression of opinion upon the merits of the question so fully ai’gued by counsel seems desirable at this time.
The question under consideration may be stated thus: Does the “priority of appropriation,” which the constitution declares “shall give the better right as between those using…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1882
- Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1887
- Thomas v. GuiraudSupreme Court of Colorado · 1883
- Schilling v. RomingerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1878
- Dorr v. HammondSupreme Court of Colorado · 1883