Forbes v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: Since the territorial act of 1881 the right to acquire a specified amount of the flow of nonnavigable streams for beneficial purposes has been recognized by the legislature. S. Dak. Stats. 1905, p. 201; 1907, p. 378. An appropriation is effected by formal notice of intention to divert a specified amount of water for specified purposes, followed by diligent construction and completion of necessary work preparatory to the use of the water.
Read the full summary
The Reporter's statement of the case: Since the territorial act of 1881 the right to acquire a specified amount of the flow of nonnavigable streams for beneficial purposes has been recognized by the legislature. S. Dak. Stats. 1905, p. 201; 1907, p. 378. An appropriation is effected by formal notice of intention to divert a specified amount of water for specified purposes, followed by diligent construction and completion of necessary work preparatory to the use of the water. Wiel, Water Eights, sec. 370. The right, after having been properly acquired, is not an absolute permanent property…
1Opinion of the CourtHay, Judge
This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover $50,000 which they allege to be the value of certain water rights owned by them and which have been taken and appropriated by the defendants, the United States.
The plaintiffs and their grantors since the year 1880 have been the owners in fee simple of 640 acres of land situate in Meade County, South Dakota. These lands consist of two separate tracts of 320 acres each; the western, or upper tract, known as the Cusick place, is pasture land; the eastern, or lower tract, known as the home place, is agricultural land, *66of which 130 acres has been…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Kansas v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Atchison v. PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.