Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />#195, Ch. 90, t35 C.S.A. provides in part that "Each claimant tor <br /> <br /> <br />appropriation 01' \Yater within said watcr district, whether na1d appropria- <br /> <br /> <br />tion ehall have been ...nolly or pnrtW.lly completed, and thout;h no tiling <br /> <br /> <br />aLall have been made in the ottioe 01' the state engineer, ehall appear at <br /> <br /> <br />eald general adjudioation proceEl<Ung and t11e hie statement 01' olaim and <br /> <br /> <br />otter proot in support thereot. + + + " <br /> <br /> <br />It vrill be noted that the statute doee not eay that those claiming <br /> <br /> <br />the ownership 01' water rights S"811 appear. ,It merely aays that "Each <br /> <br /> <br />ola1mant tor appropriation ot water,ft etc. <br /> <br /> <br />In Re.ndaJ.l v. The Rocky Ford Ditch Co., et al., 29 Colo. ~, as <br /> <br /> <br />P. 240, the court held that the statute authorizing an appeal in IliIjudlon- <br /> <br /> <br />tlon proceed1ngs was not open to lithe different CODsmnerc. n <br /> <br />The 1'ol1owing sentenoe is taken !'rom the opinion 01' the GOurt in <br /> <br /> <br />Town 01' Sterling, et al. v. Pr.wnce Ditch Extena100 Co., 42 Colo. 421, 4.:51, 94 P. <br /> <br /> <br />339. <br /> <br />"A ditGh co~ may maintain o.n ..ctlon to protect the rigllts <br />01' the COIlllumers 01' .....ter through. its ditch, and it 1a not neoeseary <br />to join lJUoh COIlllUlll.Crs with tho ditoh oompany as pa.-ties pla1."ltit:t' <br />in an action tor that purpose." <br /> <br />Tho "ar~er8 Independent Ditch Co. v. The Agricultural Ditch Co., et <br /> <br />al., supra, ..... a case in which tho pllL1nt1t.i' ditch G=llIlY sought an in- <br /> <br />junction to restr..in the detendant di tell company !'rom inter1'ering with tho <br /> <br />claimed water rights exereised in conneotion with the plaint1tr corpGrationta <br /> <br />ditch. Tho ocmrt hold, <br /> <br />"It neeoosarlly 1'Gllo;:;s trom wht.t h.u already been said that <br />the plainti1't company hils BUch an internst as w111 enable it to main- <br />tain this acticn,.and it is unneoessary either to unite with it its <br />stockholders or thone who are reGeiv1ng water through. its ditch, or <br />make the user. ot ....ter unde," the detendant ditch or its atockholders <br />parties de1'enClllr.t. A Gontrary oonstruotion would practienlly deteat <br />the e"ds 01' justice and Gloss the ccmrts 01' ..ppeals rrom ditch oom- <br />panies 1Ih1.ch ....y be unlaw1"11l1y and injurioualy deprived 01' water to <br />which they Ilre entitled." <br /> <br />In Tho !4or.trose Ca.'lal Co. v. The Loutsenhl.J:er Ditch Co., et al., 23 <br /> <br />ColG. 233, 48 P. 532, it appeArS tb.s.t the aation ...s 01' the kind in ths <br /> <br />Independent Fn1".ners Ditch Co. case 4IlIi that it w.... instituted by a ditch or <br /> <br />oanal oompany, <br />"and the other plaintifts in error, in beha.lt Gt themselves and <br />other ueers and appropriators 01' water through ita eana.l, to restrain <br />The LoutseDh1zor Ditoh COIllP<U17, and all persons uolng water through <br />its ditch, and W. J. Toland, water co~ssioner 01' district No. 41, <br />1'1'om diverting or preventing certain watera C>t the UnGompal1gre river <br />trom flowing Into the Montrose canal, + + + . <br /> <br />-6- <br /> <br />2'5'52 <br /> <br />