Bright

The question in this case is whether or not the third amended complaint states a cause of action; the court having sustained a demurrer thereto and the plaintiffs declining further to amend. Judgment accordingly passed for the defendant. The plaintiffs thereupon sued out this writ of error.

In substance the allegations of the complaint are that during all of the times therein mentioned the defendant company was a California corporation engaged in business in Ormsby county, state of Nevada, “as a water company impounding, ditching, fluming, storing, and distributing water for the purposes of irrigation and domestic uses for pay,” and that years before the plaintiffs in the action acquired their alleged interest in the land described in the complaint one Gara- *840 vanta was the owner thereof, onto and over which the defendant company permitted a part of the waters that it had i>y means of dams, ditches, flumes, and pipes diverted and impounded from Marlette Lake in Nevada, for mining, agricultural, and domestic uses, to overflow and wash and injure the said land of the said Garavanta and his crops thereon, by reason of which acts of the defendant company the said Garavanta…