Welch v. Garrett
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. Evidence of abandonment and forfeiture is admissible under the general issue, and these need not be specially pleaded. (Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 671; 5 Morr. Min.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. Evidence of abandonment and forfeiture is admissible under the general issue, and these need not be specially pleaded. (Bell v. Brown, 22 Cal. 671; 5 Morr. Min. Rep. 240.) This ditch was noi; constructed and consequently not used until 1879, some thirteen years subsequent to the passage of the mining act of Congress of July 26, 1866, United States Revised Statutes, sections 2339 and 2340, and hence cases are not in point which hold that said act operated as a grant of right of way for such ditches used prior to the date of its passage. Sections 2339…
1Opinion of the CourtQuarles, J.
The plaintiff brought this suit to obtain a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the use and enjoyment of a certain ditch, known as the “Miners’ Ditch,” by the plaintiff, and for damages, and a judgment decreeing the plaintiff to be the sole and absolute owner of said ditch. The case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, the facts found in favor of plaintiff, and judgment made and entered accordingly. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied him, whereupon he appealed from the order denying him a new trial, and also from the…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Smith v. DenniffMontana Supreme Court · 1900
- Ada County Farmers' Irrigation Co. v. Farmers' Canal Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1898
- Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Prentice v. McKayMontana Supreme Court · 1909
- Jenkins v. State, Dept. of Water ResourcesIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.