| OCR Text |
Show SOME GENERAL PROCEDURAL MATTERS IN WATER RIGHTS LITIGATION 507 respect to two streams that flow from California into Nevada-the Carson River and the Walker River. A suit was brought in the Federal court for the Northern District of California by users of water of Carson River in Nevada, against users from the same stream in California, to determine the respective rights of use. The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the rights of the complainants to a specific quantity of the stream waters, as against an objection that in doing so it was being asked to pass upon titles to real property in another State.362 Another suit, relating to waters of Walker River, was brought in the Federal court for the District of Nevada by Nevada complainants against a California defendant. The defendant appeared, entered a plea to the jurisdiction of the court which was overruled, and afterward filed an answer to the complaint. The court held that having acquired jurisdiction to the person of the defendant, it had jurisdiction to try the case. Where the necessary parties are before the court, it is immaterial that the res of the controversy is beyond its territorial jurisdiction; it has power to compel the defendant to do things necessary to give full effect to the decree against him. In other words, without regard to the subject-matter, the courts consider the equities between the parties; they decree in personam according to these equities, and enforce obedience to their decrees by process in personam.363 While the foregoing controversy over Walker River was being tried in Nevada, the defendant organized a company to which he conveyed the water rights and lands (the ownership of which he had set up as a defense in his answer) and commenced two suits in the State superior court of Mono County, California, involving the same issues. The Federal court in Nevada reasserted its conclusion that it had obtained jurisdiction and granted an injunction against prosecution of the suits in the California court.364 This decision was affirmed by both the United States Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals held that although the Nevada court was not empowered to settle the rights of the parties in California, it might nevertheless look behind the defense answer to the appropriation in California, in order to ascertain and determine whether such an appropriation was prior and paramount to the appropriation of the Nevada complainant and, if not, then to settle and quiet complainant's title and rights therein. It may become necessary, therefore, in determining the right of appropriation in one State, to ascertain what are the rights in another. The "firmly established" rule that the court first acquiring jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit, and of the parties, is entitled to maintain it until the controversy ends and the rights of 362Anderson v. Bassman, 140 Fed. 14,15, 20-21 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1905). 363 Miller & Lux v. Rickey, 127 Fed. 573, 580-581 (C.C.D. Nev. 1904). 364Miller & Lux v. Rickey, 146 Fed. 574, 581-588 (C.C.D. Nev. 1906). |
