Reynolds
Reynolds v. Hosmer
Opinion
lead Opinion
Niles, J.
It is not questioned by the plaintiffs that the defendant, as owner of the upper canal between the South Fork of the *208 American River and Long Canon had a right to the use of the waters of the South Fork for the purposes for which the canal was constructed. But it is contended that this admitted right of the defendant was not exclusive and absolute in him, but was shared by the plaintiffs, in some undefined relation, by virtue of their ownership of the lower canal leading from Long Canon to the Grand Reservoir.
This claim is based upon the assumption that the entire canal, from the grand reservoir to the South Fork, was a continuous aqueduct constructed by the same party—the South Fork Canal Company—and in accordance with one original plan; and that, therefore, the right to the use of the waters of the South Fork appertained to the ditch throughout its entire length, and not to a single section or portion of it.
The defendant acquired his title by purchase at a sale under a decree of foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien for labor upon and materials used in the construction of what is termed the upper canal or section.