Little-Wetsel Co. v. Lincoln

Citations

• 101 Wash. 435

Syllabus

<p>Waters and Water Courses—-Irrigation Ditches—Easements—• “Ownership.” When the title to an irrigation ditch originates in grant or prescription to use another’s land, it never rises above its source as an easement, and “ownership” of the ditch refers to ownership of the easement and not to title in fee.</p> <p>Same—Irrigation Ditches—Rights oe Dominant Estate. Where, at the time of granting an easement for an irrigation ditch, there was no contemplation of a greater servitude than the one specified, the owner of the dominant estate cannot increase the burden of the easement by turning other waters into the ditch without the consent of the owner of the servient estate.</p> <p>Same—Irrigation Ditches-—Rights oe Tenants in Common. A tenant in common of the easement of an irrigation ditch has no right to enlarge the easement right by imposing the additional burden of carrying other waters not in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the grant, and neither has the right to deposit in the ditch private waters for his exclusive use; but the fact of co-tenancy in the easement gives both parties the right to possession of waters in the ditch according to their respective proportionate interests.</p> <p>Same—Irrigation Ditches—Actions—Judgment—Changing Diversion. Upon adjudging the rights of cotenants in an irrigation ditch, the court is not justified in changing the place and mode of diversion employed for a long time, merely because it would prove convenient to one of the parties in his use of a private ditch.</p> <p>Same—Irrigation Ditches—Damages eor Diversion-—Rights oe Cotenants. The wrongful commingling of his private waters, by one of the tenants in common of a joint ditch, without placing suitable measuring devices, forfeits his right to damages for diversion of part of the water by his eotenant.</p>