Vanderwork v. Hewes
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court for Eddy County before W. H. Pope, Chief Justice. Seepage water of all kinds is subject to appropriation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court for Eddy County before W. H. Pope, Chief Justice. Seepage water of all kinds is subject to appropriation. Laws 1907, chapter 49, sees. 1, 53, 54; Samuel C. Weil on Water Rights in Western States, secs. 4-3, 102, 142, 360, 372; Millhiser v. Long, 10 N. M. 99; Civil Code California, sec. 1410; .Katz v. Walkenshaw, 141 Cal. 166, 99 Ataerican St. Rep. 35; 70 Pac. 663; 74 Pac. 766; Cohen v. LaCanada Water Co., 76 Pac. 47; Cohen v. LaCanada Water Co., 91 Bae. 584; ex parte Elam, 91 Pae. 811; Barclay v. Abraham, 64 L. R. A. 255; 100 American St. Rep. 365; Erickson v.…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OP THE COURT.
McFIE, J.
The main question for our consideration, is, whether or not the water involved in this controversy is public water subject to distribution by the Territorial Engineer under Chapter 49, Laws of 1907. It is clear that the application of Vanderwork for the appropriation of the water was made under that law and the permission granted by the engineer for the use of the water upon the lands of Vanderwork, necessarily assumes that the water which rises upon Hewes’ land is subject to distribution under the provisions of the Act of 1907.
Section 12, Chapter 49, Laws of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Davis v. SpauldingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Metcalf v. NelsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by17 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Bliss v. DorityNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1950
- Yeo v. TweedyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929
- Bower v. Big Horn Canal Ass'n.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1957
- New Mexico Products Co. v. New Mexico Power Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1937
- Nielson v. SandbergUtah Supreme Court · 1943
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.