Lawrence v. Adams

Washington Supreme Court

Lawrence v. Adams

39 P.2d 1002, 180 Wash. 696, 1935 Wash. LEXIS 459

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 1935

DocketNo. 25359. Department Two.

StatusPublished

This text of 39 P.2d 1002 (Lawrence v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence v. Adams, 39 P.2d 1002, 180 Wash. 696, 1935 Wash. LEXIS 459 (Wash. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Steinert, J.

This is an action to enjoin the further diversion of waters from a non-navigable stream, and for damages for injuries already sustained. The court entered a decree permanently enjoining the diversion and awarding nominal damages. The defendants have appealed.

The pleadings are substantially the same as, and almost identical with, those in Haberman v. Sander, 166 Wash. 453, 7 P. (2d) 563, and Lawrence v. Sander, 166 Wash. 703, 7 P. (2d) 567, particularly those in the latter case. The lands involved in the Lawrence case, just cited, are exactly the same lands as those involved here. In both the Haherman and Lawrence cases, the litigation arose over a diversion of water from Wilson creek, while in this case the diversion was of water from Nanum creek. The two creeks come together a short distance below the canyons from which they respectively emerge, and thereafter flow as one for a distance of approximately a mile and a half. They then separate, Wilson creek with its branches flowing over the westerly portions of respondents’ land, and Nanum creek flowing over the easterly portion of their land.

The evidence in the case respecting the diversion of the water and its effect upon respondents’ land is of the same kind and nature as that in the Lawrence case, supra. After hearing the witnesses and inspecting the premises, the trial court found, as shown in its memorandum opinion, that respondents had been materially damaged by the diversion of the water. The evidence does not, in our opinion, preponderate against the court’s finding. The facts having *697 been established, the court entered a decree similar to that in the Lawrence case.

No new question or different principle of law is presented here, and nothing is shown to take the case out of the controlling effect of the Doberman and Lawrence cases. Upon the authority of those cases, therefore, the decree herein is affirmed.

Beals, Holcomb, and Blake, JJ., concur.

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

Steinert, J.

This is an action to enjoin the further diversion of waters from a non-navigable stream, and for damages for injuries already sustained. The court entered a decree permanently enjoining the diversion and awarding nominal damages. The defendants have appealed.

The pleadings are substantially the same as, and almost identical with, those in Haberman v. Sander, 166 Wash. 453, 7 P. (2d) 563, and Lawrence v. Sander, 166 Wash. 703, 7 P. (2d) 567, particularly those in the latter case. The lands involved in the Lawrence case, just cited, are exactly the same lands as those involved here. In both the Haherman and Lawrence cases, the litigation arose over a diversion of water from Wilson creek, while in this case the diversion was of water from Nanum creek. The two creeks come together a short distance below the canyons from which they respectively emerge, and thereafter flow as one for a distance of approximately a mile and a half. They then separate, Wilson creek with its branches flowing over the westerly portions of respondents’ land, and Nanum creek flowing over the easterly portion of their land.

The evidence in the case respecting the diversion of the water and its effect upon respondents’ land is of the same kind and nature as that in the Lawrence case, supra. After hearing the witnesses and inspecting the premises, the trial court found, as shown in its memorandum opinion, that respondents had been materially damaged by the diversion of the water. The evidence does not, in our opinion, preponderate against the court’s finding. The facts having *697 been established, the court entered a decree similar to that in the Lawrence case.

No new question or different principle of law is presented here, and nothing is shown to take the case out of the controlling effect of the Doberman and Lawrence cases. Upon the authority of those cases, therefore, the decree herein is affirmed.

Beals, Holcomb, and Blake, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 P.2d 1002, 180 Wash. 696, 1935 Wash. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-adams-wash-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack