Action to Determine Water-Eights—Submission upon Stipulated Facts—Additional Findings—Support op Judgment—Harmless Error.—Where an action to determine water-rights is submitted upon stipulated facts showing that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment, the making of additional findings by the court is unnecessary, and if it be erroneous, the error is harmless, where the additional findings do not materially change the stipulated facts.

Id.—Eights op Los Angeles in Eiver as Successor op Pueblo— Biparian Eights Subordinate.—The rights of the city of Los Angeles in the Los Angeles Eiver for the use of its inhabitants, as successor of the old pueblo, is paramount in the whole body of the stream; and all rights of riparian owners on that river, are subordinate to the rights of the city therein.

Id.—Confirmation and Patent op Pueblo “Land”—Water-Bights not Barred—Part op “Land”—Law op Locality.—The obtaining by the city of Los Angeles, which was incorporated in 1850, of a confirmation and patent for the pueblo land, under the act of Congress of March 3, 1851, “to ascertain and settle private land claims in California,” without any mention of “water-rights” in the proceedings, does not establish an adjudication barring the water-rights of the city in the Los Angeles Biver as the successor of the pueblo whose rights therein were part of the “land” by the law of the locality.

Id.—Construction op Act op Congress—“Land” Only Contemplated.—The act of Congress of March 3, 1851, was intended to segregate private from public “land,” no word being used therein to designate property other than “land.” No claimant of “land” thereunder was required to set up in the petition to the commissioners any claim to “water-rights,” riparian or otherwise, but the claimant was entitled, under the confirmation and patent, to everything embraced in the word “land” used therein, by the general law applicable to the locality of the land, which may be essentially different in different localities.

Id.—Question Undecided as to Extent op Paramount Bight op City.—The decision made as to the existence of the paramount right of the city and its inhabitants over the rights of a riparian proprietor on the Los Angeles Biver, herein involved and determined as against the adverse claim of the riparian owner to the contrary, would be no authority in a case which might hereafter arise, where the question would be as to the extent of plaintiff’s prior and paramount right.

Id.—Judgment Quieting Title—Injunction—Prayer por General Belief—Appellant not Prejudiced.—When the judgment quiets the title of the city as against the adverse claim of the riparian owners, and the facts alleged warrant an injunction not specifically prayed for, it may be granted under the general prayer for relief; and where it merely restrains the defendant “from claiming or asserting any right to the water, except in subordination and subject to the paramount right of the plaintiff,” it merely accords with the judgment, and cannot be prejudicial to the appellant.