Schumacher v. Brand

Citations

• 72 Wash. 543
• 130 P. 1145
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1509

Syllabus

<p>Waters and Water Courses — Easements—Grant by Implication —Irrigation Ditch. Where the owner of irrigated land sold part of the tract, after he and his predecessors in interest had created and continuously used a ditch across the land retained, which was reasonably necessary for the beneficial use and enjoyment of the land sold as an outlet for waste water accruing from the irrigation thereof, the grantees take an easement in the land retained for the maintenance of the ditch, as located at the time of their conveyance.</p> <p>Same — Abandonment — Intention — Evidence — Sufficiency. Abandonment of a waste ditch to carry off surplus water in irrigating land is a matter of intention, and is not shown by the fact that the owners of the dominant estate permitted the owners of the servient estate to temporarily change the course of the ditch for a period of two or three years, the changed location still subserving the purposes of a waste ditch.</p> <p>Same. An easement in the maintenance of a ditch for irrigation is not lost by the fact that other parties were allowed to make use of it.</p>