OCR Text |
Show 430 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES briefs of the parties was devoted to the question whether the State Engineer, as an alter ego of the State in this proceeding, was estopped to claim a forfeiture of the water right in question, even if otherwise he might have prevailed, the supreme court concluded that the findings on the merits made it unnecessary to determine "the interesting question raised by the parties on the issue of estoppel, particularly, whether the State itself can be estopped to assert its right in the administration of the public waters of the State. Hence, we pass a decision on this matter raised in the case. Compare, State ex rel. Erickson v. McLean, 62 N.M. 264, 308 P. 2d 983."906 In a subsequent case, the court said "Appellant's contention is in the nature of an estoppel, which does not apply to a sovereign state where public waters are involved."907 Party Making Admission Knowledge of his own title.-To establish an estoppel, it must appear that the party making the admissions by his declarations or conduct was surprised of the true state of his own title.908 Representations. - It is necessary that the party making the admission shall "always intend, or at least must be so situated that he should be held to have expected, that the other party shall act."909 But it is not necessary that there should be "direct or affirmative verbal representations," for such representations may arise by implication. If a person by his conduct induces another to believe in the existence of a particular state of facts, such conduct constitutes an implied representation of the truth of that state of facts.910 906State w.Davis, 63 N. Mex. 322, 334, 319 Pac. (2d) 207 (1957). 901State ex rel. Reynolds v. Fanning, 68 N. Mex. 313, 361 Pac. (2d) 721, 724 (1961), citing State ex rel. Erickson v. McLean, 62 N.M. 264, 308 Pac. (2d) 983 (1957). 90*Biddle Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 367-368 {19,59);Campbell v. Shivers, 1 Ariz. 161, 172-173, 25 Pac. 540 (1874); New Mercer Ditch Co. v. New Cache la Poudre Irrigating Ditch Co., 70 Colo. 351, 354-355, 201 Pac. 557 (1921); Farmers Res. & In. Co. v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co., 108 Colo. 482, 500, 120 Pac. (2d) 196 (\9A\);State v. Nielsen, 163 Nebr. 372, 388-389, 79 N.W. (2d) 721 (1956); In re Ahtanum Creek, 139 Wash. 84, 95, 245 Pac. 758 (1926); Trambley v. Luterman, 6 N. Mex. 15, 26, 27 Pac. 312 (1891); Martinez v. Cook, 56 N. Mex. 343, 352, 244 Pac. (2d) 134 (1952); Staub v. Jensen, 180 Oreg. 682, 689, 178 Pac. (2d) 931 (1947);Bennett v. Salem, 192 Oreg. 531, 541, 235 Pac. (2d) 772 (1951); Heidelberg v. Harvey, 366 S.W. (2d) 121, 123-124 (Tex. Civ. App. 1963). ^Verdugo Canyon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 673-674, 93 Pac. 1021 (1908); Smyth v. Neal, 31 Oreg. 105, 112-113, 49 Pac. 850 (1897); Bennett v. Salem, 192 Oreg. 531, 541, 235 Pac. (2d) 772 (1951); Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co., 9 Wash. 576, 586, 38 Pac. 147 (1894). 910Irrigated Valleys Land Co. of Cal. v. Altman, 57 Cal. App. 413, 428, 207 Pac. 401 (1922); State v. Nielsen, 163 Nebr. 372, 388, 79 N.W. (2d) 721 (1956); Risien v. Brown, 13, Tex. 135, 142-143, 10 S.W. 661 (1889). |