Beatty

This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs from that portion of a judgment which, while directing the issuance of a writ of mandate in their favor, declines to award the plaintiffs damages accruing by reason of the re fusal of the defendant to do the acts which the writ is issued to compel.

In the case of James Beatty v. Clark Colony Water Co. (No. 1702), ante, p. 749, [ 153 Pac. 990 ], this day decided, this court has affirmed that portion of said judgment, directing the issuance of the writ of mandate, and in doing so has referred generally to the facts of the case in Margaret Jane Beatty v. Clark Colony Water Co. (No. 1701), ante, p. 745, [ 153 Pac. 989 ], which are practically the same as those in the case at bar. In addition to the facts there referred to, it may be stated that the practically undisputed evidence in this ease discloses that if the plaintiffs were entitled to a writ of mandate, compelling the delivery of water for irrigating purposes upon their land, they were also entitled to damages as a result of the failure, refusal and neglect of the defendant to deliver such water during an entire irrigating season after a seasonable and proper demand for the same,…