Kelly v. Natoma Water Co.

California Supreme Court

Kelly v. Natoma Water Co.

6 Cal. 105

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1856

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 6 Cal. 105 (Kelly v. Natoma Water Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelly v. Natoma Water Co., 6 Cal. 105 (Cal. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

Possession, or actual appropriation, must be the test of priority in all claims to the use of water, whenever such claims are not dependent upon the ownership of the land through which the water flows.

Such appropriation cannot be constructive, because there would be no rule to limit or control it, resting, as it must, only in intention. The principle, as laid down in Eddy v. Simpson. 3 Cal. R., 249, must this case.

The design of the defendants, two years before, to appropriate Alder Creek as a connecting link of their enterprise, could not give them exclusive rights until it was executed, because it is not the intention to possess, but the actual possession, which gives the right. And so, in the case of Barnes v. Starke, cited by appellants, the doctrine of relation, as between the acts of the plaintiff, first and last, was simply to the and not to the intention of

The purchase, by the defendants, of Walker’s dam, was an actual appropriation of the waters of the creek so far, but no further; and until they built a dam below, in order to make a further appropriation, any one else had the right to do so. If they had commenced first to build the dam in good faith, then, although their power of enjoyment would not commence until its completion, yet the right, as against others, would bear relation to the time of commencement; and this is all that the principle in Barnes v. Starke amounts to.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

Possession, or actual appropriation, must be the test of priority in all claims to the use of water, whenever such claims are not dependent upon the ownership of the land through which the water flows.

Such appropriation cannot be constructive, because there would be no rule to limit or control it, resting, as it must, only in intention. The principle, as laid down in Eddy v. Simpson. 3 Cal. R., 249, must this case.

The design of the defendants, two years before, to appropriate Alder Creek as a connecting link of their enterprise, could not give them exclusive rights until it was executed, because it is not the intention to possess, but the actual possession, which gives the right. And so, in the case of Barnes v. Starke, cited by appellants, the doctrine of relation, as between the acts of the plaintiff, first and last, was simply to the and not to the intention of

The purchase, by the defendants, of Walker’s dam, was an actual appropriation of the waters of the creek so far, but no further; and until they built a dam below, in order to make a further appropriation, any one else had the right to do so. If they had commenced first to build the dam in good faith, then, although their power of enjoyment would not commence until its completion, yet the right, as against others, would bear relation to the time of commencement; and this is all that the principle in Barnes v. Starke amounts to.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Cal. 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-natoma-water-co-cal-1856.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack