Crandall
American Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Crandall
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Haney, J.
In the opinion filed, the court fell into the error, as the parties did, of saying that in the absence of an indispensable party, the court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the water rights of complainant. Equity Rule 39, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, and 28 U.S.C.A. § 111 , removed any defect of jurisdiction, but the court cannot make a decree in the, absence of such party. Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 130, 141 , 15 L.Ed. 158 ; Barney v. Baltimore, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 280, 285 , 18 L.Ed. 825 ; California v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 157 U.S. 229, 250 , 15 S.Ct. 591 , 39 L.Ed. 683 ; Minnesota v. *865 Northern Securities Co., 184 U.S. 199, 236 , 22 S.Ct. 308 , 46 L.Ed. 499 ; Bogart v. Southern Pac. Co., 228 U.S. 137, 146 , 33 S.Ct. 497 , 57 L.Ed. 768 .
In the petition for rehearing, it is asked that leave to amend be given appellants. In Fourth Nat. Bank v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 624, 631 , 20 L.Ed. 82 , it is said:
It is alleged in the bill that “this suit is a suit in equity brought by a tenant in common or joint tenant for the partition of lands in a case where the United States is one of such tenants in common or joint tenants.” Mention is…