Town of Kirkland v. Cochrane

Citations

• 87 Wash. 528
• 151 P. 1082
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 926

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain—Compensation—Waters—Riparian Rights—1 Sale oe Waters—Evidence. In proceedings to condemn riparian rights by diverting a stream for a water supply, the owners of the source of the stream are not entitled to augment their damages by showing the value of the water supply as á commercial proposition, aside from the value of the use of the water upon their lands, where their only interest or right in the waters was that of riparian owners, subject to lower riparian rights.</p> <p>Same—Compensation—Riparian Rights—Evidence—Remoteness. In such a case, it is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude, as too remote and speculative, evidence of the possibility that all the riparian owners interested could combine so as to enable them to jointly dispose of the waters for commercial purposes; nothing of that sort being contemplated at the time.</p> <p>Appeal—Review—Instructions. It is not prejudicial to refuse requested instructions which are covered in the general charge.</p> <p>Appeal—Review—Harmless Error. In proceedings to condemn riparian rights by diverting a stream for a water supply, it is not prejudicial error to receive in evidence ineffective appropriation notices posted upon the land, where it was plain from the admissions of counsel and instructions of the court that the jury could not possibly have received the impression that the notices gave the respondent any right whatever in the water, and they were only admitted to show a right to prosecute the proceedings and take the waters for a public use.</p>