OCR Text |
Show ABANDONMENT AND STATUTORY FORFEITURE 277 author is aware, it was not adopted in any State except California and Montana. In addition to being clearly irrational in its disregard of the fundamental rule that abandonment is an intentional process, it tended to operate on the parties to the transaction with unnecessary severity. The importance of the concept in the jurisdictions in which it was adopted or considered diminished or ended long ago.127 Effect of Abandonment Instant effect.-"Abandonment is a matter of intention, and operates instanter."128 The moment the intention to abandon the right and the relinquishment of possession thereof unite, abandonment is complete.129 An earlier statement by a Federal court respecting abandonment was that "It is a question of intention, and occurs the instant the intention is formed."130 This of course is inaccurate, for one might form a positive intention to abandon a mining claim or water right without ever thereafter relinquishing possession. An abandonment of property held by possessory title takes place instantly when the occupant deserts it without an intention of ever reclaiming it for himself and does not care what may thereafter become of it.131 The moment that the abandonment of an appropriative right is complete, the rights of the appropriator "cease and determine."132 "The abandonment [of a mining claim] determines the right of the party from the day of the act, and the property is to him as though he had never owned or occupied it."133 No revival of abandoned right.-After a water right has been abandoned, a subsequent sale of the right, whether made in good faith or not, cannot revive the abandoned right.134 Neither the original appropriator nor any person now attempting to connect himself with the original right can thereafter successfully assert ownership as against other persons holding rights in the water supply.135 194, 200, 52 Pac. 283 (1898); Whalon v. North Platte Canal & Colonization Co., 11 Wyo. 313, 349-350, 71 Pac. 995 (1903). 127The question of validity of executed parol licenses, under circumstances of equity, is an entirely different matter. This facet of conveyance of title to water rights is discussed in chapter 8, under "Property Characteristics-Conveyance of Title to Appropriative Right-Some Aspects of Conveyance of Appropriative Titles-Formalities of convey- ance," in paragraph 5 thereof. 1MDerry v. Ross, 5 Colo. 295, 300 (1880); accord, In re Umatilla River, 88 Oreg. 376, 382,168 Pac. 922 (1917), 172 Pac. 97 (1918). %nWimer v. Simons, 27 Oreg. 1, 13, 39 Pac. 6 (1895); Chill v.Jarvis, 50 Idaho 531, 537, 298 Pac. 373 (1931). 130Inez Min. Co. v.Kinney, 46 Fed. 832, 835 (C.C.D. Idaho 1891). 131 Farmers' In. Dist. v. Frank, 72 Nebr. 136, 155, 100 N.W. 286 (1904). 132Smith v. Hawkins, 110 Cal. 122, 126, 42 Pac. 453 (1895). 133Davis v. Butler, 6 Cal. 510, 511-512X1856). i3*Davis v. Gale, 32 Cal. 26, 35 (1867); Deny v. Ross, 5 Colo. 295, 300-301 (1880); Anderson Land & Stock Co. v. McConnell, 188 Fed. 818 (C.C.D. Nev. 1910); Watts v. Spencer, 51 Oreg. 262, 272-273, 94 Pac. 39 (1908). l3iKirman v. Hunnewill, 93 Cal. 519, 529, 29 Pac. 124 (1892). |