Ulrich v. Pateros Water Ditch Co.

Citations

• 67 Wash. 328
• 121 P. 818
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1175

Syllabus

<p>Waters — Irrigation—Water Contract — Construction — Agreement Running With Land. An agreement for water for irrigation, calling for a certain number of miners’ inches for specific tracts of land, which was binding on each parcel of lahd separate and apart from the others, the conditions to be binding upon heirs and assigns, runs with the land, and places a purchaser of a tract in the situation of the original contractee.</p> <p>Corporations — Representation — Contracts — Stockholders— Ratification by Corporation. Where, in consideration of 98 per cent of the stock of an irrigation company, the purchaser entered into an agreement to furnish water for specified tracts of land, and agreed to execute a water deed therefor as soon as he was made president of the corporation, the company ratifies the contract by furnishing water and receiving payments therefor under the contract.</p> <p>Waters — Irrigation — Contracts—“Miners Inches” — Parol Evidence — Certainty—Specific Performance. A contract for a certain number of “miners’ inches” of water to be taken from an irrigation ditch is ambiguous, and may be shown by parol evidence to mean in that locality a quantity of water which would flow through an orifice one-inch square under at least a four-inch pressure; and when so explained, is sufficiently definite to admit of specific performance.</p> <p>Waters — Irrigation—Water Contracts — Breach — Measure of Damages. Upon specific performance of a contract to furnish plaintiff five miners’ inches of water, to be taken from a ditch at a point most convenient for the irrigation of plaintiff’s land, the measure of plaintiff’s damages should be interest on his investment at the legal rate from the date of the refusal to furnish water, less the maintenance fee, rather than the remote and speculative profits that he might have made from the cultivation of the land, where it appears that his land was some distance from the ditch, the lands were never cultivated and the plaintiff h