Morris v. Bean

Citations

• 123 F. 618
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4927

Syllabus

<p>1. Waters—Prior Appropriation of Water from Stream—Vested Rights.</p> <p>One who by prior appropriation has acquired a right to the waters of a stream flowing through the public lands for irrigation purposes is protected in such right by the provisions of Rev. St §§’ 2339, 2340 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1437], as against subsequent appropriators, although the latter withdraw the water within a different state.</p> <p>2. Same—Suit for Diversion from Stream—Joinder of Defendants.</p> <p>A prior appropriator of water from a stream by means of an irrigating ditch may maintain a suit to protect his right against all junior appropriators who by withdrawing the water from the stream above him prevent its reaching the head of his ditch.</p> <p>& Jurisdiction of Federal Courts—Amount in Controversy.</p> <p>A bill to enjoin defendants from diverting the waters of a stream in violation of complainant’s prior right thereto, which is alleged to be of the value of $2,000, and also to recover damages, in the sum of $2,500, alleged to have been sustained by complainant by reason of the joint action of defendants in diverting such waters, shows the amount in controversy to be sufficient to give a federal court jurisdiction.</p> <p>4. Preliminary Injunction—Grounds—Sufficiency of Showing.</p> <p>A general allegation of irreparable injury by reason of the diversion by defendants of the waters of a stream, preventing them from reaching complainant’s irrigating ditch, is not sufficient to warrant the granting of a preliminary injunction, but the facts upon which such allegation is based must be shown.</p> <p>¶ 3. Jurisdiction of federal courts as determined by the amount in controversy, see notes to Auer v. Lombard, 19 C. C. A. 75; Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. Roper, 36 C. C. A. 459.</p> <p>¶ 4. See Injunction, vol. 27, Cent. Dig. § 232.</p>