Walker v. McGinness
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Elmore County. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. One, after he has diverted water, may use a part of a channel of a stream to convey his water to his land, and in doing so may mingle it with other water and take his water out again, but it is his water from the time he first diverts it and brings it under his control, and in taking it out the second time he is only recovering, as it were, his' water, and in doing so he must not in any way…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Elmore County. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. One, after he has diverted water, may use a part of a channel of a stream to convey his water to his land, and in doing so may mingle it with other water and take his water out again, but it is his water from the time he first diverts it and brings it under his control, and in taking it out the second time he is only recovering, as it were, his' water, and in doing so he must not in any way interfere with other rights. (Kinney on Irrigation, secs. 246, 247.) Cites no authorities on the point decided by the…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
— This action was brought to enjoin the defendant from changing his point of diversion of certain water decreed to him by the district court from Cold Springs creek, Elmore county.
*541The complaint alleges that plaintiffs are the owners of six hundred acres of land lying along and upon said creek: One tract of one hundred and sixty acres, known as the “McAnulty” or “Stanfield-McAnulty” tract; one of three hundred and twenty acres, known as the “Cold Springs Eaneh”; and one of one hundred and twenty acres, known as the “Stanfield Desert.” That defendant owns eight hundred acres of land lying along…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wood River Power Co. v. ArkooshIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Montpelier Milling Co. v. City of MontpelierIdaho Supreme Court · 1911
- Walker v. McGinnessIdaho Supreme Court · 1903