Quigley v. McIntosh

I concur in most, but not all, of the foregoing opinion. To some extent I think it amounts to a modification or impeachment of the decree of 1913. It is, of course, elementary that this cannot be done. That decree was final and conclusive on the matter then in issue and litigated as between the parties and their successors, and subject to correction only on motion or by an appeal within the proper time. (Long on Irrigation, sees. 232, 242; Weil on Water Rights, 3d ed., see. 1233.)

I recognize that when the decree is conditional, resort may be had to the facts upon which it was based in order…