Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Jenison v. Redfield - 149 Cal. 500, 87 P. 62 (1906)

Rule:

The right of a landowner of an irrigation district to the use of the water acquired by the district is a right to be exercised in consonance with and furtherance of the ultimate purpose of the district: the improvement by irrigation of lands within the district and in no other way. His right is always in subordination to the ultimate purpose of the trust. So far as he proposes to use the water for the irrigation of lands within the district, he is proposing to use it in furtherance of the purpose of the trust, and is entitled to have distributed to him for that purpose such proportion as his assessment entitles him to. 1897 Cal. Stat. p. 259, § 18. To this extent only can he be held to be the owner of any share or portion of the water, except that, by virtue of the proviso of § 18, he may assign the right to the whole or any portion of the share to which he is entitled. This does not mean, however, that he may make an effectual transfer of his share, free from the trust by which it is encumbered. It still remains subject to that trust, and therefore can be used only for the irrigation of lands within the district, and the irrigation district has no authority to distribute it for any other purpose. The right of assignment conferred by the Irrigation Act on a landowner is limited by the whole policy of the statute to an assignment for irrigation within the limits of the district.

Facts:

Plaintiff was the owner of thirty-eight acres of land within the boundaries of the Walnut Irrigation District. He was also the owner of considerable land outside the said district, upon which, he had planted alfalfa and walnuts. Plaintiff filed an action for damages against defendants, directors of the district, to distribute and apportion to him his proportion of the water of said district for the purpose of irrigating lands outside the district. The trial court rendered judgment for the directors. Plaintiff challenged the judgment. 

Issue:

Could the plaintiff recover for the alleged damages he suffered due to the defendants’ refusal to apportion to him his proportion of the water for the purpose of irrigating lands outside the district? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court declared that the case was controlled by the Wright Act, 1887 Cal. Stat. p.29, and the acts supplementary thereto, 1897 Cal. Stat. p. 254. Acknowledging that by reason of his ownership of land within the district and the assignment of water rights from other landowners in the district, the landowner was entitled to a specified amount of water in the district, the court ruled that under the provisions of the law, the water could only be used within the district. Because the evidence showed that the landowner was given sufficient water for all his lands within the district and initiated the litigation in order to acquire water for irrigation of lands outside the district, the court ruled that the judgment against him was proper. In doing so, the court declared that the purpose of the Act was to provide an efficient way to water the land within the district, moving such from an arid state to a state where it could be cultivated. Given that a demand for water to be use outside the district was contrary to the purposes of the Act, it was properly denied.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates