WSPC06937 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To the oOlllplaint tl:n1s brou,ght the defendants demurred, one at the grounds thereof belng "that there ....s a misjoinder 01' partles plaint11'f and defendant." The trJ.al court sustalned the dCl1lllrrar. Sald ruling .....s a1'1'irmed by the Supreme Court 01' Colorado, the court saying' "The ruling 01' the court below upon the ground 01' misjolnder 01' partles, plaIntlf1' and de1'endant, is sustained by the deolslon in Farmers' Ind. Dltch Co. v. Agr1cultural Ditch Co.. 22 Colo. 61Z. It Is there1.n he~d. that, by reason 01' thO number or oonsumera undez- cU.tches 01' this charaotert. it YOUld be impractlcable to make them palotles to a proceeding 11.l<e the one be.fore UlI' and that the ditch c~ itself 18 the proper party to maintain the act10n, 1t being trustee 1'01' lts stockholders and oonsumers. . + + + The first sentence or the flrst sectlon 01' the Act relating to the matter of the changing of points of d1verzion (Sea. 104, ch. 90, '35 C.S.A.) readll. "Every person, nssocJ.ation or corporation desirous of chang- ing in ..mole or in part the point or points of d1verdon 01' his or its right h use ""tar 1'l'om any of the str_ of the state,-aE'all presont a petit10n to the dlstriot cour.: n-am which the originAl decree l8sued, whether the c!Jn'1ge be 1'l'om one d1strict to 11I10ther or not, prlQ'1ng that such ohn'1ge be grl1Ilted. + + + " Attentlon 1s called to the langu.age "hi. or ita r1sht". It will be - - recalled, as hereinbe1'ore pointsd out, thC.t the rlght to the use of ....ter 18 in the consumers or conlNlUers and stockholders, and not in the ditch oorporat10n. The point .....s ro.1sed in lIonte V1sta Canal Co. v. CentennJ.al Irrigating Dltch Co., 24 Colo. App. 496, lZ5 P. 981, that the mutual d1tch compa,ny whioh brought the prooeed1ng there under revlew for authority to c\1,llnge the point of d1vcrslon 1IIllS not the proper party, because the d1tch COlIIp&ny itself dld not own the .....ter rlght or rights exercised in connec- tion with and through the d1tch. In other words, the 1Il1ter r1ght was not "ita right." The court held that, 1thile the corporation carried the ....tar - for the use of its stookholde1'll only, and, 1lh1le it owned no land ex"ept its right of way, and irrigated no land 1'or its own uee, nevertheless 1t was the proper party to institute and c.e.rry through the prooesding. IYo quote from the opinion (498-499) I "Pet1tioner _s a corporation or assoo18t1on known as a mutual ditch company, carrying .....ter for the use of 1ts stockholder:! onl,., maintaining and operating the d1tch solel,. for their use and beneflt, and, "lthough it owned no lam exoept for its right of wey, and a. a oorporatlon irrigated no land 1'o~ its own use nevertheless we think that by virtue ot 1ts relation to its stockholders in ..mom was veeted the 'rlght to the use of water from the stre&lll,' the corporation bad the right, as trustee for such stOckhOlders, to institute end prosc- cute the proceed1ng. -7- e..~\. "'t.-J