OCR Text |
Show 508 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES the parties are fully administered, without interference from and to the exclusion of the other, was reaffirmed.365 In affirming the decisions of the Federal courts in the foregoing case, the United States Supreme Court stated:366 Full justice cannot be done and anomalous results avoided unless all the rights of the parties before the court in virtue of the jurisdiction previously acquired are taken in hand. To adjust the rights of the parties within the State requires the adjustment of the rights of the others outside of it. Of course, the court sitting in Nevada would not attempt to apply the law of Nevada, so far as that may be different from the law of California, to burden land or water beyond the state line, but the necessity of considering the law of California is no insuperable difficulty in dealing with the case. Foreign law often has to be ascertained and acted upon, and one court ought to deal with the whole matter. We are of the opinion, therefore, that there was concurrent jurisdiction in the two courts, and that the substantive issues in the Nevada and California suits were so far the same that the court first seized should proceed to the determination without interference, on the principles now well settled as between the courts of the United States and of the States. (3) Wyoming-Idaho. A diversion on an interstate stream took place in Wyoming, but the injury flowing from the wrongful act occurred downstream in Idaho. In this action to determine the extent and priority of water rights, the Idaho State court had jurisdiction not only of the res, but also of the person of the defendant. Therefore, according to the Idaho Supreme Court, the trial court had the right and authority to hear and determine all questions that occurred in the case and that were essential to a decision of the merits of the issues. This included rights and priorities on the same stream located beyond the State line. "Streams rise in one state and flow into another irrespective of boundary line, and still the rules and doctrines of priority of appropriation and use are the same in most of the arid states." 367 (4) Nevada-Idaho^ Two decisions were rendered in immediate sequence by the Federal Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, with respect to the same defendant, in suits to determine conflicting water rights on two different streams-Salmon River and Goose Creek-rising in Nevada and flowing into Idaho.368 The court stated that it had already determined in Rickey Land & Cattle ""Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 152 Fed. 11, 15-22 (9th Cir. 1907). 366Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 218 U.S. 258, 261-263 (1910). 361 Taylor v. Hulett, 15 Idaho 265, 97 Pac. 37, 39 (1908). "This is particularly true with respect to this case. Here the riparian doctrine of the common law has been abrogated in both Idaho and Wyoming, and the rule of 'first in time is first in right' is recognized and enforced in both states." Id. 3tiyineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co., 245 Fed. 9 (9th Cir. 1917); Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Oakley Land & Water Co., 245 Fed. 30 (9th Cir. 1917). Questions relating to the extent to which the judgment |