OCR Text |
Show 510 ADJUDICATION OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES Judgments and Decrees Binding Effect: Conclusiveness As indicated by the California Supreme Court, no binding determination of specific water rights ordinarily can be made in a private action in which the holders of these particular water rights are not parties.373 And, as indicated by the Idaho Supreme Court, the court's judgment or decree in such an action, subject to appeal, is final and binding upon the parties.374 Statements to the same general effect were made by the Supreme Court of Hawaii with respect to the commissioners' awards or decrees.37S A Texas court of civil appeals, in a case which can be regarded as an ordinary civil action, stated, "Our understanding is that a judgment is only determinative of the issues raised by the pleadings, or which were fairly within the scope of the pleadings."376 And according to the Supreme Court of Texas, a consent decree of a court of competent jurisdiction will not be pronounced a nullity where it adjudges, within the issues made by the pleadings, the respective priorities of conflicting claimants to the use of waters of a river.377 Statutory adjudication proceedings often appear to have been intended to provide a more comprehensive proceeding than might have been accomplished in an ordinary civil action.378 There are variations, however, in the extent to which all or fewer water rights claimants within the encompassed area are brought into the proceeding and are bound by the final determination. The fact that not all claimants have submitted proof and are entered may not affect the force of the final decree as to those whose rights are covered thereby. But, whether, after a final decree is entered, a claimant who has failed to appear and submit proof is barred and estopped from thereafter asserting any rights theretofore acquired on the stream system, or whether he may appear within a limitation period prescribed by statute, or whether he is entitled to relief of 313Strong v. Baldwin, 154 Cal. 150, 163, 97 Pac. 178 (1908). 'The persons not made parties are, of course, not bound by the judgement, nor are they injured by the injunction." Pasadena v. Alhambra, 33 Cal. (2d) 908, 920, 207 Pac. (2d) 17 (1949). The rule ordinarily applicable is that parties are not bound by an adjudication of water rights in an action to which they are not made parties. Merrill v. Bishop, 69 Wyo. 45, 62, 237 Pac. (2d) 186 (1951). 374Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside In. Dist., 14 Idaho 450, 458, 94 Pac. 761 (1908); Frost v. Idaho In. Co., 19 Idaho 372,114 Pac. 38 (1911); Lambrix v.Frazier, 31 Idaho 382, 386, 171 Pac. 1134 (1918); Mays v. District Ct., 34 Idaho 200, 207, 200 Pac. 115(1921). 31sPalolo Land & Improvement Co. v. Wong Quai, 15 Haw. 554, 564 (1904); Appeal of A. S. Cleghorn, 3 Haw. 216, 218 (1870). 316Biggs v. Miller, 147 S.W. 632, 635 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912). 377 Ward County W. I. Dist. No. 3 v. Ward County In. Dist. No. I, 117 Tex. 10, 13-14, 295 S.W. 917 (1927). 378 This is suggested by a number of statements in reported Western court decisions. See "Special Statutory Adjudication Procedures-Purposes of Statutory Procedures," supra. |