See Nuisance, pollution of water. ssession sufficient to maintain action fçr i The rightful possession of land is sufficient for an interruption to that possessio Crandall v. Woods, 8 Cal., 136; McDona 220; Norris v. Glenn, 1 Idaho, 590; cwers of water commissioners. See Water commissioners. ractice, distinct causes of action. An entry upon and ouster from a dam-site a a canal-site, and canal in process of water claimed by means of the dam of action, which can not be united action in a complaint, but should be N. C. & S. Canal Co. v. Kidd, 37 Cal., 282. Practice, local customs must be proven. Courts will not take judicial notice of loca istence of a right to water appropria recognized by the act of July 26, 18 custom. Lewis v. McClure, 8 Ore., 273. Prescription. A right to the use of water may be acquired enjoyment of the water in a partic to the time fixed by statute of limit Crandall v. Woods, 8 Cal., 136; Union W ican Co. v. Bradford, 27 Cal., 360; L right by. son of an adverse use for the statutory was open, peaceable, and uninterrupted, t. w., 450; the Mining Débris Case, 9 Saw., er Co., 40 Cal., 396; Cave v. Crafts, 53 7 Cal., 346; Winter v. Winter, 8 Nev., 129. dverse use, the acts by which such right operate as an invasion of the rights of the -The enjoyment relied upon must be of ound for an action by the other party. 176; Grigsby v. Clear Lake Water Co., . v. Semi-Tropic Water Co., 64 Cal., 185; k v. Caldwell, 14 Nev., 167; Boynton v. 396. use. Right o One through which a stream of water naturty right in the stream that any other uary otherwise. 176; The Mining Débris Case, 9 Saw., ; Vansickle v. Haines, 7 Nev., 249. Right A against one who has wrongiunty an 7 Parks C. & M. Co. v. Hoyt, 57 Cal., 4 eal property, water ditches and rights are See Water ditches are real property. Reasonable use of water. See Riparian rights, reasonable use. Relation. See Appropriation, relation. Reservoirs, natural depressions. One may utilize as a reservoir for storing w land which includes the bed of a legal right of prior appropriators or with by his acts. Larimer County R. Co. v. People ex rel Right of way, change of direction of ditch. One who has acquired the right to go upor across the same may change the co ally surveyed, and if such diversion of the land, he will not be liable fo Conger v. Weaver, 6 Cal., 548. Right of way, conveyance of. A deed which conveys the right of way f veyance of the ditch itself. Reed v. Spicer, 27 Cal., 57. propriators of water. Is of the United States, made after the the appropriator any right as against a m the United States made prior to said le v. Haines, 7 Nev., 249. and from injury by stream. et his land from a threatened change in m and to erect works to prevent the old altered. Ripa l agreement. s through the lands of different persons ol agreement, and each party has coned, cared for, and enjoyed his portion of agreement should be upheld in equity. h a natural stream flows has a right to f such stream during its passage, but has er. w., 450; Eddy v. Simpson, 3 Cal., 249; Kidd v. Laird, 15 Cal., 161; Hale v. Mcan, 54 Cal., 3; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal., el Co., 13 Ore., 496. Ri The grantee or patent of the waters flowing through the lan reserved. Lux v Haggin, 69 Cal., 255; Vansich A stream of running water is part and p inseparably annexed to the soil, soil passes to the patentee of th Union M. & M. Co. v. Ferris, 2 Saw Riparian rights, irrigation. A riparian proprietor may take water fr use of it for purposes of irrigati Union M. & M. Co. v. Ferris, 2 Saw., W. Co. v. Semi-Tropic W. Co., Swift v. Goodrich, 70 Cal., 103; A riparian proprietor is not entitled to for the purpose of irrigation wit of other riparian proprietors, alt was no more than necessary for Union M. & M. Co. v. Ferris, 2 Saw. v. Tone, 58 Cal., 289; Larned v. ford, 77 Cal., 66. Riparian rights, obstruction of stream. While a riparian owner to whom the wa use it for domestic purposes and to so obstruct the stream as to p as in a state of nature it was ac Ferrea v. Knipe, 28 Cal., 341; Lobde 138 A L-AP VOL IV- -23 |