Simmons v. Winters
Oregon Supreme Court
Plaintiff appeals. In order to make a valid appropriation of waters upon tbe public domain and to obtain the exclusive right to the water thereby, the appropriation must be made with a bona fide present design or intention of applying the water to some immediate, useful or beneficial purpose, or in a present bona fide contemplation of a future application of it to such purpose by the parties thus appropriating or claiming. (Pomeroy Rip.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff appeals. In order to make a valid appropriation of waters upon tbe public domain and to obtain the exclusive right to the water thereby, the appropriation must be made with a bona fide present design or intention of applying the water to some immediate, useful or beneficial purpose, or in a present bona fide contemplation of a future application of it to such purpose by the parties thus appropriating or claiming. (Pomeroy Rip. Rights, § 47; Weaver v. Eureha Lake Oo. 15 Cal. 271; Davis v. Gale, 32 Cal. 26; 91 Am. Dec. 554; Orton v. ■ Dixon, 13 Cal. 33; Gibson y. Puchta, 33 Cal. 310;…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
This is a suit in equity, brought by the plaintiff to enjoin the defendant from diverting the waters *39of a certain stream commonly known as Sheep Creek ditch, and for damages. The waters of Sheep Creek ditch flow through the lands of the plaintiff and the defendant. The theory upon which the suit is predicated, is that Sheep Creek ditch is an ancient and natural watercourse, with well-defined banks and channels, to the uninterrupted flow of which the plaintiff is entitled as a riparian owner, and by the diversion of which he has already been damaged, and will be irreparably damaged unless the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Atchison v. PetersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Weis v. City of MadisonIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Cave v. CraftsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Hoyt v. City of HudsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Barnes v. SabronNevada Supreme Court · 1875
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. WeedTexas Supreme Court · 1932
- Hough v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Nevada Ditch Co. v. BennettOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Re Determination of Water Rights of Hood River.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923
- Coxl v. CampbellTexas Supreme Court · 1940
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.