WSPC06937 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In the Ramshorn ca.se, the court Tlent 80 far as to pass upon the administrative action of the Board of Irrigation, Highways, and Drainage of the State of Nebraska. We quote the following !'rom that cmne (84-65). "We aro of the opinion that, conoeding for the preoent trot the appropriation granted to the Ramshorn Ditch Company September 22, 1916, had any validity, it wao not within the power of the board of irrigation highvuys and drainage of Nebraska to grant a priority in conneot1oo therewith dating back 23 yearo before the ooJ:l!l&IlY had sought to UlIe o.ny of the ....ter of Sheep oreek for irrigation, and lons prior to the time that there wae any water !lowing in said oreek.' f""""horn Ditch Co. et al., v. U. S. 269 Fed. 80, 84-B5. It is true that the statuteo of Colorado opeoifically name the court in which adjudication proceedingo ohall be had, with a right of review by the Supreme C curt of C 01 orado, but the 8 ta tu tee of the S tn t e generally or specif1CD.ll,., as the case rrny bo, name the State oourto in 1Ih1ch all legal actions 1NJ.y be enforced. Tho following is quoted !'rom the opinion of the court in Grover v. lIerritt Development Co., 7 F.2d 917. "When it is said that a particular statutory remedy Is ex- clusive, this does not mean that it Il1UfIt be puroued in any par- ticular eourt. If that were 00, the otates, by prescrii>ing that eertain remediel} should bo pursued in the otate eourt only. would put an end to federal jurisdiotion in sueh fields, and deprive l1tignnte of their rights under the COn3titution of the United Stateo. This eannot be done. Ry. Co. v. Whitton (W18. 1872) 13 Wall. (80 U.S.) 270, 286, 287, 20 L. Ed. 5711 Madisonville Trac- tion Co. v. st. Bernard Mining Co. (Ky. 1905 196 U. S. 229, 252, 253, 2S S. Ct. 251, 49 L. Ed. 462." As ia stated in WUdge, et al. v. lIeDougal, 222 F. 562, 565. "Where a statute of a state creates a new right, or provides a new right oogniznble in equity, the national oourts will enforce that right." To the s""'" eUect io the J.angue.ge of the court in Harrison v. Remington Paper Co., 140 F. 365, 399. "Rights crentod and remedieo provided by the 8 tatutes of the states to be pursued in the atate oourts _y be administered in the national oourts." That there is no impediment, 00 tar ao the mechanico of adminiatering water rights are concerned, is sho1fIl by the fact that in one case nrter Mother the ....ter rights of the Indiana have been adjudicated in the Fodc- ral courto. One ouch adjudication in the District Court for the District of Colorado was of the rights of the Indians on the Pine river, the case be- ing U.". v. Morrison Conoolidnted Ditch Co.,et al., which went to deoree October 25, 1930. The docket number i8 7736. -2- 2556