OCR Text |
Show 436 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES 'Defendants contend that the court erred in not finding that the plaintiff was estopped from now claiming the property.' This contention is not available, for the reason there is no assignment of error to support it. A finding to that effect was not requested, and the absence of such a finding was not specified in the bill of exceptions or statement of the case upon which the motion for a new trial was based. Relation to Prescription At issue in a 1953 South Dakota case was whether defendant had acquired the right to burden the land now owned by plaintiff with the continued maintenance of a dam. The supreme court said, "To hold that plaintiff is estopped as claimed by appellants would simply result in a reduction of the statutory time required to acquire such right by prescription. We do not determine that an estoppel may never be asserted which will result in a shortening of the statutory time, but if such be the result the elements of the estoppel should clearly appear."943 Estoppel by Judgment As stated by the South Dakota Supreme Court:944 The salutary doctrine of estoppel by judgment has so estab- lished the adjudications of the courts in the confidence of mankind as to result in their universal recognition and acceptance as the highest order of indisputable evidence of rights. Such a judgment as is here under consideration which has stood as an unquestioned record of the priority and extent of a valuable property right in the use of water, and upon which successive grantees have depended as a record of title, should not be nullified except for the most cogent and impelling reasons. Executed Parol License The validity of parol sales of water rights has been sustained under circumstances of equity, where the transferee entered into possession, made use of the water, and made investments on the strength of the parol title. It was said late in the 19th century by the California Supreme Court that in many cases a mere parol license which had been executed, and upon the faith of which investments had been made, had been held irrevocable.945 During the same general period, it was held in Oregon that this principle rested upon equitable estoppel; that after one has acted on the faith of a parol license and 943Willadsen v. Crawford, 75 S. Dak. 161, 164, 60 N.W. (2d) 692 (1953). 9™Cundy v. Weber, 68 S. Dak. 214, 221, 300 N.W. 17 (1941). 945Smith v. Green, 109 Cal. 228, 234, 41 Pac. 1022 (1895). |