Bardsly v. Boise Irrigation & Land Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Canyon County. The issue has nothing to do with the prayer for relief; it is made by the affirmance and denial of some fact or facts, or by the denial of some legal proposition which is implied in the statement of facts.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Canyon County. The issue has nothing to do with the prayer for relief; it is made by the affirmance and denial of some fact or facts, or by the denial of some legal proposition which is implied in the statement of facts. If the facts put in issue by the complaint •and answer and established by the evidence entitles the party to any relief in the power of the court to give, although not ■demanded, it is the duty of the court to give it, and its power to do so is not conditioned upon the form of the prayer. (Bliss on Code Pleading, 3d ed., secs. 159-171; Pomeroy’s…
1Opinion of the CourtSdlliyan, J.
— This action was brought by the appellant to obtain a decree confirming his right to receive nine-tenths of one cubic foot of water per second of time from that certain canal known as the “Eidenbaugh Canal,” and owned by the respondent corporation, during the season of 1901, for the irrigagation of certain land owned by appellant, and described in the complaint, and to enjoin the respondent from preventing appellant from receiving said amount of water, and to enjoin and restrain respondent from refusing to receive and number in its numerical order appellant’s application for such water. The…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside Irrigation District, Ltd.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
- McHale v. Goshen Ditch Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1935
- Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District v. BarclayIdaho Supreme Court · 1935
- Parrott v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1920
- Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co. v. Twin Falls CountyDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.