Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OOlCl:H <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br /><, <br /> <br />4. ---Contract Enti tHng Consumer to a Specified Volume if Applied <br />fcr by a Specified Date imposes no obligation upon the consumer. It, in <br />effect, provides for a continuous series of annual transactions, which the <br />consumer may enter into or not at his pleasure. To protect himself as <br />against others applying to the oompany for, securing, and beneficially using <br />the water, he must exercise the option each year at the appointed time. <br /> <br />One who, having such an optional contract. disposes of his land and <br />afterwards applies for the water when he can make no beneficial use of it. <br />is not entitled to receive the water. To comply vrith the demand would be <br />mere waste, and the demand is properly denied. <br /> <br />5. CONV;';YANCCi OF LAHD--Ylhether the Right to Hater Used for the <br />Irrigation Thereof Passes depends upon the intention of the grantor, to be <br />gathered from the terms of the conveyance; or, when this is silent. from <br />the circumstances attending the transaction. <br /> <br />6. IRRIGATION--Defined--The application of water to the growing <br />of trees upon the streets of a city. or trees, shrubs, grasses and the like. <br />in public parks, is as much irrigation as the application of water to the <br />growth of orops upon farm lands. Neither the farmer nor the municipality, <br />using, or seeking to use water from the same source. has any right superior <br />to the other. <br /> <br />7. DIFFERENT PRIORITIES Ar:A1WED TO TIlE SAEE DITCH--Rights of Consumers <br />--The general rule is that all consumers are entitled to be supplied from <br />all the different priorities awarded to the ditch from which they are served. <br />Tillere the first appropriation Was for some special purpose or enterprise, and <br />later priorities were awarded to supply a different class, the latter would <br />be as distinct as if the volumes of the later priorities were ccnveyed <br />thrcugh different canals. <br /> <br />8. PRACTICE IN SUPREUE COURT--Judg;ment--Controversy betvreen various <br />persons claiming to be entitled to water from an irrigating canal. Decree <br />reversed, with directions to the trial court to determine the case without <br />further pleadings or evidence, except testimony to establish the relative <br />rights in the different priorities ~arded to the ditch, and to provide in <br />the deoree for the payment cf lawful rates of oarriage. <br /> <br />.4>peal from Denver District Court.--Hon. GEOlWE ,-;. ALLEN, Judge. <br /> <br />Mr. H. A. LI;:DSLEY. City Attorney. and Messrs. ALLEN & ,:EBSTER, <br />for appeJLant. <br /> <br />lIessrs. CRljj.jp & ALLEN, for appellees. <br /> <br />GOUDY & ~:ITCHELL, Attorneys for the J.M.Br~rn Interests. <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />S. A. OSBORNE, D. R. PATTERSON, Attorneys for Administrator of E. J. <br />Sanderlin, Claimant. <br /> <br />Mr. JUSTICE GJillBERT delivered the opinion <of the court I <br /> <br />-2.. <br />