Home/Oregon Supreme Court/Bull v. Siegrist

Bull v. Siegrist

126 P.2d 832, 169 Or. 180
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 7, 1942
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 P.2d 832 (Bull v. Siegrist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bull v. Siegrist, 126 P.2d 832, 169 Or. 180 (Or. 1942).

Opinion

BAND, J.

The plaintiff is the owner of the NE% of the NEi/4 of section 22 and the N% of the Ny2 of section 23, T. 1 S., R. 38 E., W. M. These lands are now and heretofore have been irrigated entirely from the flow of certain described springs which rise on or immediately above plaintiff’s land. He also uses the water flowing from these springs for stock and for domestic use.

The defendants, as successors in interest of one G. I. Wade, are the owners of an adjoining tract of land consisting of 400 acres lying immediately south of the lands owned by the plaintiff. These premises are irrigated by the waters of End creek by means of two ditches leading therefrom, one constructed at a very *182 early date and the other, which is the upper of the two ditches, in 1923.

Both tracts of land are on the east slope of Mt. Emily at an elevation slightly above the floor of the Grande Ronde valley proper and are comparatively level. End creek is a small stream which heads on Mt. Emily and flows through the lands of the defendants but does not flow over or across the lands of the plaintiff. It is fed by the melting of snow and has an early run-off and generally goes dry in the early part of June of each year. It is a tributary of the Grande Ronde river.

In an adjudication proceeding brought in the circuit court for Union county, under and pursuant to the provisions of the water code, entitled: “In the matter of the determination of the relative rights of the various claimants to the use of the waters of Grande Ronde River above the mouth of Gordon Creek and of all its tributaries above said point, including Gordon Creek, except Mill Creek, heretofore adjudicated, in Union County, Oregon”, a final decree was entered on August 8, 1925, which settled and determined, as between the parties hereto, their respective rights to the use of the waters involved in this litigation for the irrigation of their premises and made the same appurtenant to the lands now owned by the parties hereto. The springs in question here and End creek are above the mouth of Gordon creek and, as stated, End creek is one of the tributaries of the Grande Ronde river. In and by said adjudication and decree, the rights awarded to the premises now owned by the plaintiff for the irrigation of said land and those of G. I. Wade, predecessor in interest of the defendants, are specifically stated as follows:

*183 1dByI3kmBqKfjQGy5J4Wilv4PvbzaPlC9ekJ09OXVH6q

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

England v. Ally Ong Hing
448 P.2d 128 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1968)
Lawson v. Schuchardt
363 P.2d 90 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 P.2d 832, 169 Or. 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bull-v-siegrist-or-1942.