1. Waters and Water Courses @=247(1) — Prior Appropriation — Evidence —Sufficiency.

In a suit to determine the rights to the waters of an interstate stream claimed under the Carey Act (Act Aug. 18, 1894, c. 301, § 4, 28 Stat. 422 [Comp. St. 1916, § 4685]), evidence held sufficient to establish the older rights in plaintiffs.

а. Stipulations @=14(1) — Construction—Water Rights.

A stipulation by defendant that “we are the owners of whatever rights we have on our side, and that you are the owners of whatever rights those people [referring to the early-day settlers] may have had on your side,” was not a waiver of primary proofs showing acquirements of the rights of plaintiffs’ predecessors to use the waters of the stream.

3. Waters and Water Courses @=240 — Appropriation—Rights of Successors.

Defendants would be precluded by prior appropriations of water from the stream by plaintiffs’ predecessors adequately established by the evidence.

4. Appeal and Error @=1008(1) — Findings of Trial Court — Review.

An appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on questions of fact unless it be made to appear that the latter court is clearly in error in its conclusions.

5. Waters and Water Courses @=254 — Duty of Water — Determination.

Defendants could not complain that the duty of water' was not measured by the old flooding system, they not being entitled to more water than they were able to apply to a reasonable and economical use.

б. Waters and Water Courses @=240 — Prior Appropriation — Amount.

Whoever is first in time is entitled to sufficient water from a public stream for his reasonable needs.

7. Waters and Water Courses @=254 — Appropriation—Allowance—Sufficiency.

In a suit to determine conflicting rights to the waters of a public stream, an allowance to defendant of three acre-feet per acre for hay and grain lands, and two acre-feet for grazing lands, held amply sufficient for defendants’ needs, considering the acreage subject to irrigation and the dates of the appropriations.

8. Waters and Water Courses @=247(1) — Appropriation—Allowance— Sufficiency.

• In a suit between defendant stock company and plaintiff, who had entered upon a project under the Carey Act of Congress (Act Aug. 18, 1894, c. 301, § 4, 28 Stat. 422“[Comp. St. 1916, § 4685]), for impounding waters from a public stream for distribution to users, an award to plaintiff of 2% acre-feet per acre of the land under the project held reasonable.

9. Waters and Water Courses @=247(1) — United States District Court— Water Eights — Jurisdiction.

The suit being for the purpose of quieting plaintiffs’ water rights in Idaho, the court was without jurisdiction to settle water rights in Nevada.

10. Waters and Water Courses @=247(1) — Defects of Parties Defendant.

Where no complaint is made that others than defendants are attempting to interfere with plaintiffs’ water rights within the court’s jurisdiction, there was no defect of parties defendant.

11. OOBPOBATIONS @=>506-PABTIES--DEFENDANTS.

The owner oí a large proportion oí the stock of defendant land company, in a position to control its action, was a proper party defendant to a suit against the land company.