Desert Water, Oil & Irrigation Co. v. State

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 149 This appeal is from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action in eminent domain and from the order denying defendant's motion for a new trial. *Page 150 Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Nevada. It has complied with the laws of the state of California governing its right to do business herein. By compliance with such laws it has acquired the right to do business in California and to that extent is here domesticated. Whatever controversy may have existed over the right of such a corporation to exercise the power of eminent domain is now laid to rest by the decision of this court in Bank in San Joaquin etc. Co. v. Stevinson, 164 Cal. 221 , [ 128 P. 924 ], where such right is expressly declared to exist. The discussion in that case is so full as to relieve from the necessity of doing more than to refer to it. Plaintiff is a public service corporation. It sought to condemn the land in question for the purpose of preserving and maintaining water-rights, watersheds, and sources, equipping, operating, and…

The opinion in the above entitled case discloses that the United States has no interest, legal or equitable, in the land in controversy to call for its appearance in this controversy, and, further, if it had any such right, those rights would not be impaired by its nonappearance. For this reason the following paragraph in the opinion is unnecessary and is therefore eliminated: *Page 163 "It is further argued that, owing to the conditions which have been shown to exist concerning the land in controversy, complete justice cannot be done without bringing into court the United States as a party defendant. But this of course, however desirable, is beyond the power of the state court to do. (Case v. Terrell, 78 U.S. 199 , [ 20 L. Ed. 134 ]; Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349 , [ 51 L. Ed. 834 , 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526]; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 , [ 51 L. Ed. 956 , 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 655]; Sawyer v. Osterhaus, 195 Fed. 655 ; The Davis, 10 Wall. 15 , [ 19 L. Ed. 875 ]; Buckley v. United States, 196 Fed. 429 ; Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60 , [ 50 L. Ed. 935 , 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 568]; Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373 , [ 46 L. Ed. 954 , 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 650].) The United States…