OCR Text |
Show 438 LOSS OF WATER RIGHTS IN WATERCOURSES between the riparian owner and his grantee, such a deed is binding,951 providing conveyancing requirements have been met. It is held that the effect of such a grant is an estoppel against the grantor.952 This "self-created estoppel runs not merely against the consenting riparian owner but likewise against the riparian lands."953 In such cases of estoppel by deed, the courts apparently have not required the establishment of all the elements of equitable estoppel discussed previously.954 The effect of estoppel upon riparian rights was involved in several Texas cases, including Motl v. Boyd, best known for its dicta concerning the origin and extent of riparian rights in Texas. The actual holding was that the superior right of riparian defendants as against plaintiff appropriators was denied them, not because it did not exist, but for the reason that in this case defendants were estopped to assert it. The basis of estoppel was a "grant, license, or easement"-given verbally by Lee, predecessor in title of defendants, to plaintiffs' predecessors-to construct a dam and ditch on Lee's riparian land, from and by means of which water would be taken to plaintiffs' lands Dak. 466, 487, 128 N.W. 702 (1910); Corpus Christi v. McLaughlin, 147 S.W. (2d) 576, 578 (Tex. CM App. 1940, error dismissed). 9S1Spring Valley Water Co. v. Alameda County, 88 Cal. App. 157, 164, 263 Pac. 318 (1927, hearing denied by supreme court). See Gould v. Eaton, 117 Cal. 539, 543, 49 Pac. 577 (1897); Fitzstephens v. Watson, 218 Oreg. 185, 344 Pac. (2d) 221, 228 (1959). 952Fitzstephens v. Watson, 218 Oreg. 185, 344 Pac. (2d) 221, 228 (1959);Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co., 158 Cal. 206, 213, 110 Pac. 927 (1910), 170 Cal. 425, 429-430, 150 Pac. 58(1915). In California Pastoral & Agric. Co. v. Madera Canal & In. Co., 167 Cal. 78, 86, 138 Pac. 718, 721 (1914), partially quoted approvingly in Fitzstephens v. Watson.supra at 229, the court said with respect to "a riparian owner who has purported to grant to another his riparian right without granting the land of which that right is part and parcel[: ] The effect of such a grant is simply to convey the grantor's right to the use of the water on his own riparian land, and to estop the grantor to complain against any use of the water which the grantee may make to the injury of such riparian right. * * * Such estoppel is effective as to the whole riparian right of the grantor, simply because of the terms of his purported grant thereof. By reason of his voluntary act, he has waived for himself and his successors all claims based on the doctrine of riparian rights, and is in no position to complain of any invasion thereof by the grantee or his successors." Related matters are discussed in the part of chapter 10 referred to at the outset of this subtopic. 9S3Spring Valley Water Co. v. Alameda County, 88 Cal. App. 157, 168, 263 Pac. 318 (1927). 954 31 C.J.S. Estoppel § 10, at 297 (1964) states that "Estoppel by deed is distinguishable from estoppel in pais [a term often used interchangeably with 'equitable estoppel' (see § 59 (c), at 374-375)] in that it appears from the face of the deed, and it does not require all of the elements of an estoppel in pais. [The elements of 'equitable estoppel' or 'estoppel in pais' are described in § § 67-77.] "The operation of an estoppel by deed is different in scope from the operation of an estoppel in pais, and, unlike estoppels in pais, a technical estoppel by deed may conclude a party without reference to the moral qualities of his conduct." |