Bartholomew v. Fayette Irr. Co.
Utah Supreme Court
Akpeal from District Court, Sanpete County; E. Erickson, Judge. Action by George M. Bartholomew against the Fayette Irrigation Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. APPELLANT'’S POINTS. When a suitor comes into a court of proper jurisdiction to settle “differences of opinion,” “claims of rights” or conflicts of interest in relation to his property the court must not avoid the duty imposed upon it, and the'reby defeat the objects of jurisprudence.
Read the full summary
Akpeal from District Court, Sanpete County; E. Erickson, Judge. Action by George M. Bartholomew against the Fayette Irrigation Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. APPELLANT'’S POINTS. When a suitor comes into a court of proper jurisdiction to settle “differences of opinion,” “claims of rights” or conflicts of interest in relation to his property the court must not avoid the duty imposed upon it, and the'reby defeat the objects of jurisprudence. It must proceed to adjudicate’ the rights of the parties and extend’ the arm of law sufficiently to protect such rights. It…
1Opinion of the CourtStraup, J.
This action was brought by plaintiff against the defendant, a private corporation, to restrain it from regulating and controlling the distribution of the waters of Warm creek, situate in Sanpete county. Judgment .was for th© defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Th© creek is a natural stream of water having its source from natural springs east of the town of Payette. Many years ago the plaintiff and others appropriated all the waters of the stream for irrigation and culinary purposes. The stream is sufficient to irrigate only about two hundred and fifty or three hundred acres. The plaintiff was one of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fisher v. Bountiful CityUtah Supreme Court · 1899