Utah Const. Co. v. Salmon River Canal Co.

Appellee’s petition for rehearing shows a misapprehension of the meaning and purport of our decision. The main difficulty with the so-called rules is that they are not interpretive of the decree, but cover a field not covered by the decree. As pointed out in the opinion: “The decree is conclusive on the parties and the rights thereby established are not subject to further inquiry.”

In its petition for rehearing appellee states the issue that is before the court as follows: “The distinguished jurist who rendered the decree had but two issues before him, viz., the amount of water which the respective parties were entitled to take out of the water flowing in Salmon River and its tributaries, and the priority of their respective rights. There was no issue as to the number of channels in which the water flowed, or would be permitted to flow, or as to the channels out of which the water should be taken.”

One of the main difficulties with the order appealed from was that it undertakes to determine matters which were thus not at issue in the case.

The appellee asserts in its petition for rehearing that “on no theory can this court say that the trial court intended that the decree…