Haney v. Neace-Stark Co.

The brief of the defendant NeaceStark Company asserts that the court erred in decree*106ing that plaintiffs Haney and Astner were the owners, of a water right, with date of priority as of the year 1910, with right to divert and nse from the natural flow of the waters of Powder River and its tributaries, by means of a retention dam and pumping plant, sufficient water, to the extent of 4.37 cubic feet per second, for the irrigation of certain lands described in the decree.

The court’s decree is based upon its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and is well supported by the evidence. In fact,…