1. Waters and Water Courses (§ 177*) — Flowage—Injunction.

A court of equity has jurisdiction to enjoin the diversion of water from a stream by means of canals, whereby the property of complainant is flooded and threatened with irreparable injury.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Cent. Dig1. §§ 260, 264; Dec. Dig. § 177.*]

2. Injunction (§ 197*) — Continuing Trespass — Damages in Addition to Injunction.

Where a court of equity has acquired jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin a continuing trespass upon land, it may also, to prevent a multiplicity of suits, award damages for the injury already done, although the same would also be recoverable by an action at law.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. § 417; Dec. Dig. § 197.*]

3. Courts (§ 262*) — Jurisdiction—Adequate Remedy at Law — Federal Statute.

Rev. St. § 723 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583), providing that suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States in any case where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had. at law, is merely declaratory, and does not narrow the jurisdiction of courts of equity, nor prevent the granting of legal relief therein where jurisdiction has been acquired to grant equitable relief, and the legal remedy Is not as practical and efficient.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 798; Dec. Dig. | 262.*]

4, Waters and Water Courses (§ 263*) — Suit to Enjoin Injury by Flow-age — Parties.

Defendant corporation undertook to divert water from the Colorado river near the boundary line between California and Mexico through canals for irrigation purposes. It contracted with a Mexican company, which it owned, and with other local irrigation companies which it organized in California, to deliver water to their canals and ditches, it constructed three intakes from the river, two of which were on Mexican territory on land of the Mexican company and nominally under its control, but which were, in fact, constructed and controlled by defendant. These intakes were so constructed without controlling gates that in a time of flood one of those in Mexico was so enlarged by washing that a large part of the water of the river poured through and passing through canals of the other companies overflowed and damaged, and finally destroyed the property of complainant situated in the Saltón Basin below the level of the river. Helé, that having sole control of the intakes, from the im-, proper construction of which the damage resulted, defendant was responsible therefor, and that to a suit to enjoin further flooding and to recover for the damage done the other corporations were not necessary parties.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Dec. Dig. I 263.*]

6. Equity ($ 36*) — Preventing Injury to Beal Property — Jurisdiction op Court.

A court of equity having jurisdiction of the parties may enjoin a continuing injury to real property within its jurisdiction by flooding caused by the improper construction of works maintained by defendant for diverting the water of a river into a canal, although such works are across the boundary within the republic of Mexico.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Equity, Cent. Dig. §§ 94, 96; Dee. Dig. § 36.*]

6, Waters and Water Courses (§ 177*) — Injury to Beal Estate- -Injunction.

A court of equity has jurisdiction to enjoin the maintenance of works which caused the flooding and injury of lands owned by complainant, notwithstanding the fact that pending the suit the flooding continued and entirely destroyed the present value of the property for which damages were awarded; the title to the land still remaining in complainant.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Cent. Dig. §| 260-264; Dec. Dig. § 177.*]

7, Waters and Water Courses (§ 262*) — Irrigation Companies — Liability for Flooding op Lands — Concurring Natural Causes.

An irrigation company which negligently constructed the intakes from the Colorado river into its canal without headgates or other means of controlling the flow, by reason of which in a time of flood the water flowed through in such volume as to wash away the river bank and overflow the lands of others, is not relieved from liability therefor by the fact that the flood was extraordinary.

(Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Dec. Dig. $ 262.*]