(after stating the facts as above). 1. With respect to the lands described as the north half of the southwest quarter of section 35, township 3 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian, and lot 2 (northwest quarter of the northeast quarter) of section 3, township 4 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian, the decree of the lower court provides that:

The first question to be determined is whether the title to the lands described in this part of the decree was acquired by the complainant prior to the defendant’s claim of a right of way over such lands. It appears that one Joseph H. Sherar as early as 1871 bought the pos-sessory right of an occupant in certain public lands along the Deschutes river. The land was not at that time surveyed. After the public surveys were extended over that section of the country, Sherar made a homestead entry of the southeast quarter of section 34, township 3 south, range 14 east. At the time he made such entry he supposed that it included the falls of the Deschutes river at that point, and not until 1901 did he discover that the south line of his homestead did not run south of the said falls. He thereupon took steps to acquire title to the lands upon which the falls are situated, namely, lot 2 (northwest quarter of tíie northeast quarter) of section 3, township 4 south, range 14 east; and, in addition, the north half of the southwest quarter of section 35, township 3 south, range 14 east, and the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 3, township 4 south, range 14 east. As the line of the defendant’s railroad does not cross or touch the last-named tract of land in section 3, the title thereto is not involved in this appeal.

*404 [1] It will not be necessary to enter into detail concerning the steps taken by Sherar to acquire title to these tracts of land. It is sufficient for the present purpose to say that on the 13th day of February, 1906, Sherar filed a contest and protest againá't the application of one A. L,. Veazie on behalf of the Interior Development Company to select these lands under the act of Congress of June 4, 1897, as forest reserve lieu lands, with base in the name of the Santa Fé Pacific Railroad Company. Sherar’s protest against the Veazie selection was on the ground that the lands were not at the time of the latter attempted selection vacant or unoccupied lands, but were in the possession of Sherar, who at that time, to wit, on the 13th day of February, 1906, presented and filed in the land office his application to select tire same lands as forest reserve lieu lands under the Act of June 4, 1897, with base likewise in the name of the Santa Fé Pacific Railroad Company. These applications were prosecuted in the land office, were never dismissed or withdrawn, and Sherar continued to. reside on the lands until his death in 1908. These selections by Sherar were finally approved by the Secretary of the Interior and ordered passed to patent on February 25, 1913, and on that day patents were issued thereon in the name of the Santa Fé Pacific Railroad Company for the use and benefit of the heirs and devisees of Joseph H. Sherar, who held the power of attorney from the Santa Fé Pacific Railroad Company to convey the selected lands. (Executors of J. H. Sherar v. A. L. Veazie, Attorney in fact for the Santa Fé Pacific R. R. Co., decision by Frank Pierce, First Assistant Secretary of the Interior, dated June 16, 1909. Not reported.)

These titles, evidenced by patents of the United States, were vested in the complainant at the time of the commencement of this suit. Upon the trial of the case it was stipulated that, prior to the issuance of patent by the United States for these lands to the Santa Fé Pacific Railroad Company for the use and benefit of the heirs and devisees of Sherar, the defendant had located and constructed its line of railroad over and across the said lands, claiming a right of way under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1875, entitled “An act granting to railroads the right of way through the public lands of the United States.” This right of way (200 feet in width, being 100 feet on each side of the center line of the railroad track) is claimed by the defendant to1 have been acquired under that act by filing with the register of the land office at The Dalles, Or., on the 8th day of November, 1908, a profile of its road, and the approval of said profile by the Secretary of the Interior on the 20th day of June, 1910.

The right of way granted by the act was a right of way over public lands; not a right of way over private lands, or over possessory claims to the public lands. See section 3, Act of March 3, 1875, c. 152, 18 Stat. 482 (Comp. St. 1916, § 4923). It was the opinion of the court below that the subsequent approval of the prior application of the Santa Fé Pacific Railroad Company to' select such lands in lieu of other lands under the Act of June 4, 1897, c. 2, 30 Stat. 36 , did not relate back to the date of the application and supersede the rights of the defendant acquired by ths approval of its map of definite location under the Act of March 3, 1875. This opinion was based upon the opinion of this court in Daniels v. Wagner, 205 Fed. 235 , 125 C. C. A. *405 93 ; but that case was reversed in the Supreme Court on appeal ( 237 U. S. 547 , 35 Sup. Ct. 740, 59 L. Ed. 1102 , L. R. A. 1916A, 1116, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 40); the court holding that one who has done everything essential, exacted either by law or by the regulations of the laud department, to obtain a right from, the land office conferred upon him by Congress, cannot be deprived of that right, either by the exercise of discretion or by a wrong committed by the land officers. Under this decision the Sherar lieu land selections, being first in time, were first in right. Clarke v. Halverson, 45 L. D. 54.

It is further stipulated that'on April 26, 1906, all the lands in township 3 south, range 14 east, excepting any tracts title to which had passed out of the United States, should be temporarily withdrawn from any form of disposition whatever. The withdrawal was for the purpose of constructing irrigation works under the Act of June 17, 1902, c. 1093, 32 Stat. 388 (Comp. St. 1916, §§ 4700-4708). And on October 24, 1908, a similar order was made in section 3 of township 4 south, range 14 east. When these withdrawals were made, the title to- the Sherar lieu land selections had, by the doctrine of relation, passed out of the United States (Daniels v. Wagner, supra) and was in no way affected by the withdrawals.

It follows that a footnote to the Sherar patents, that the lands described were subject to all rights under an application of the Deschutes Railroad Company approved June 20, 1910, under the Act of March 3, 1875, for right of way, was ineffectual to convey to the Deschutes Railroad Company such right of way, as the title to the land had already vested in Sherar’s heirs and devisees.

It is also stipulated that on December 30, 1909, and March 18, 1910, the lands embraced in the Sherar lieu land selections were included in the temporary power site withdrawals Nos. 66 and 125 by executive order of the President of the United States, stating that the same were “in aid of proposed legislation affecting the disposal of water power sites on the public domain.” These withdrawals were canceled as to the lands included in the Sherar selections on February 25, 1913, in order to allow patents to issue upon said lieu selections. These withdrawals having been made subsequent to the Sherar selections, they in no way affected complainant’s titles derived from the United States and based upon such selections.

The dam site owned by the complainant is located across the Des-chutes river and, as appears from the map, in lot 2 (northwest quarter of the northeast quarter) of section 3.

We are of the opinion that the court below was in error in that part of its final decree where it holds:

Under the law, as declared by the Supreme Court in Daniels v. Wagner, supra, the title of complainant to said property was acquired prior to the claim of the defendant to a right of way over the same, and the decree should have so provided.

We concur in part in the further holding of the court that what *406 ever right the defendant has (a question to be considered later) “shall not be understood or considered to interfere with or deprive complainant or its successor in interest of the right to construct and maintain a dam for hydraulic purposes in the Deschutes river where it passes through such property and installing in connection therewith appliances for the purpose of developing hydraulic and electric power for all purposes,” but we do not concur in the proviso that “the track or roadbed of defendant shall not thereby be flooded or damaged, or the operating of its road interfered with.” The defendant having entered upon these lands without authority, except such as we shall refer to later, no conditions can be imposed upon the complainant to protect defendant’s roadbed and embankments from the waters of the Des-chutes river. That condition rests upon the defendant as a duty incident to the maintenance of its right of way.

[2] 2. With respect to the lands described as the southeast quarter of section 34, township 3 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian; the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, the west half of the southeast quarter, and the east half of the southwest quarter of section 3; and the northwest quarter and northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section 10, all in township 4 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian — it was admitted by the defendant in its answer that the complainant was the owner of such tracts of land and that the defendant had located its road over and across the same. The court below awarded to the complainant the sum of $1,000 as compensation for the right of way taken by the defendant across said lands, and, upon the payment of that sum by the defendant before the. final decree, the court entered its decree in favor of the defendant as the owner of such right of way.

The original bill of complaint, filed April 18, 1910, alleged title in these and the other lands described, and prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon and trespassing upon the same and from constructing or building a railroad over the same and from interfering with the possession of the complainant or its enjoyment of the lands, pending the determination of the suit. At that time the line of road had been graded through part of these lands, but no rails had been laid thereon. There is no evidence in the record as to the quantity of land occupied by the road or its value, but the defendant alleges that it agreed to pay the Sherar' heirs $1,000 for the right of way in case the holder of the option (the complainant) did not purchase the land. The complainant did purchase, and, upon this evidence as to an alleged agreement with the executors of Sherar’s estate, the court assumed that $1,000 was a reasonable compensation to be' paid for the right of way; but the agreement was not in writing, and the evidence is clear that neither the executors of the Sherar estate nor their attorneys undertook to bind the complainant to this-agreement. On the contrary, the attorneys for the executors of the Sherar estate, in a letter dated August 25, 1909, addressed to J. W. Morrow, representing the defendant, said:

C. Monroe Grimes, one of the executors of the Sherar estate, testified that J. W. Morrow, representing the defendant company, came to him for the purpose of getting a right of way over the Sherar property and they went to Huntington’s office and took it up with him; that Mr. Morrow was told:

Mr. Morrow was further informed that the Eastern Oregon Hand Company was the purchaser with whom the executors of the Sherar estate were negotiating.

The prayer of the defendant’s answer was that the court should determine complainant’s damages by reason of the location and construction of defendant’s line of road over and across the lands owned by the complainant, in the event the court refused to dismiss complainant’s bill. The court refused to dismiss complainant’s bill, and thereupon fixed the value of the right of way at $1,000; but in the understanding or agreement between the parties this valuation was coupled with the condition that compla,inant should have the right to build a dam in the river 60 feet in height, and the defendant should take care of its right of way above this dam. The evidence upon this question will be discussed in the following paragraph of this opinion.

[3] 3. With respect to the lands described as lot 1 (northeast quarter of the northeast quarter) of section 3, and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 9, township 4 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian, the controversy relates to an agreement or understanding between the predecessor in interest of the complainant and the defendant concerning the height of a dam complainant proposed to place in the Deschutes river for the purpose of developing hydraulic and electric power, and the elevation of defendant’s railroad above the river so as to permit such a dam. This controversy is not, however, confined to the lands above described; it relates, either directly or indirectly, to all the lands involved in this appeal, and particularly to lot 2 (northwest quarter of the northeast quarter) of section 3, township 4 south, range 14 east, adjoining lot 1, above mentioned.

The conclusion of the court below, as expressed in its final decree, is that it was understood and agreed by the defendant and the Interior Development Company, the owner of the tracts of land above mentioned at the time of said agreement with the defendant, and at the time of the entry thereon and the construction thereover of defendant’s line of railroad, that the location of defendant’s track should not interfere with or deprive the Interior Development Company or its successor in interest of the right to construct and maintain a dam in the Deschutes river where it flows through such property, for hydraulic purposes, and to install in connection therewith appliances for *408 the purpose of developing hydraulic and electric power for all pun-poses. In this conclusion we concur. We think this agreement or understanding is fully supported by the evidence, and that the complainant acquired all the lands involved in this appeal with this agreement or understanding.

But the court adds a proviso to this conclusion, as follows:

In other words, that whatever dam the complainant may build must be constructed at the peril of causing injury to the fills and embankments of the defendant’s railroad and of being held responsible therefor in damages, without any obligation or duty on the part of the defendant to protect such fills and embankments and make them reasonably secure against the water above such a dam.

We have failed to find any evidence in the record supporting this clause of the decree with respect to these lands, or any of the lands involved in this appeal. It was certainly not an agreement or understanding as stated by either of the parties, and we do not think it is an inferable conclusion from anything that passed between them.

It appears from the evidence that the defendant ran a survey through this property in October, 1908, for its line of road. This line was located on the water grade along the river. It passed the dam site on lot 2 of section 3, at an elevation of approximately 20 feet above the low water in the river, and this elevation was maintained along the river with some little variation until the line passed out of plaintiff’s lands, crossing the south line of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 9, township 4 south, range 14 east, at an elevation of about 20 feet above tire low water of the river. In' February or March, 1909, B. F. Laughlin, holding an option to purchase the Sherar lands for a water power proposition, visited J. P. O’Brien, the president of the Deschutes Railroad Company, at Portland, Or., for the purpose of obtaining information concerning the location of the line of the Deschutes Railroad along the Deschutes river through the Sherar lands. Laughlin testified that O’Brien told him that he wanted the witness to get all the interested people to (agree upon a price for a right of way on the river, and at the same 'time he guaranteed to protect the Sherar property to the fullest extent that it was possible. O’Brien called in Mr. Boschke, the chief engineer of the road, and asked him how they had run their grade on the river. Boschke replied that they had run it right along — a few feet from water. O’Brien told Boschke he would have to go back and rerun the line and save every foot of power for the Sherar property that could be saved; that they had examined the property with their engineer; and that they' might have to buy it before they got through, but to save every foot it was possible to save. Mr. Boschke remonstrated, said he would have to go back 12 miles. O’Brien told him it did not make any difference how far he had to go back; he must do it.

Mr. O’Brien testified, concerning this conversation with Mr. Laugh-lin, that the line of railroad had been located at that time. His recol *409 lection was that there had been several surveys. One was on the grade close to the river, and there was another, his recollection was, 35 or 40 feet above the river. He said Laughlin asked him how high they could get up in the air at Sherar’s. The witness said he did not know; that would be a question of cost. As a result of it, he sent for Mr. Boschke. He told Mr. Boschke to run a line there and see how far he could get up at Sherar’s, without making the cost prohibitive. He asked Mr. Boschke if he had any idea, or if he could get any idea from the data he had in his possession at that time, as to how high he could go without making the cost prohibitive, and Boschke replied, “In the neighborhood of 58 or 60 feet.” O’Brien asked Laughlin if that would be satisfactory at that height — along in there between 58 and 60 feet. Mr. Laughlin said he thought that would be satisfactory; that any height that they could go above where the line was laid at that time was going to help them out. O’Brien asked Laughlin about the right of way. Laughlin said he did not think there would be any question about the right of way; that he would be willing to give the right of way free. The witness told Mr. Boschke to make a survey so as to see how high he could get the line up there without the cost being prohibitive. His recollection was that they spent about $100,000 additional in constructing the line where it was afterward located, over and above the estimated cost of the line on the river grade. This additional expenditure, he said, was made to preserve the power site so they could operate it. It was simply a question of how far they could get up in order to give Laugh-lin the additional height, in order to develop his power.

Mr. Boschke, the chief engineer, testified, concerning this interview between Laughlin and O’Brien, that the line was then located on the water grade along the river. Laughlin wanted them to change the grade so as to enable them to build a power house at Sherar’s Bridge. He did not remember exactly the height he thought he could make; it was 45 or 50 — perhaps 60 — feet. The whole thing hinged on starting up on a maximum grade and getting as high as they could. That was what his instructions were to do. His understanding was that, if the grade of the road was raised as high as it could be raised, the right of way would be given for a nominal sum, or something of that kind. The purpose was to put the road at such an elevation as to allow Laugh-lin to build as high a dam as possible.

A. Welch, the president of the Interior Development Company during 1908 and 1909, testified that he visited Mr. O’Brien in September, 1909, in company with Isaac Anderson. They went to find out how high the railroad would be at the Sherar Bridge. They were taken by Mr. O’Brien to Mr. Boschke’s office, and the maps were shown and examined. The witness said:

*410 Isaac W. Anderson testified, concerning this conversation with O’Brien:

Mr. J. W. Morrow, the right of way agent for .the Deschutes Railroad Company, was present at the conference between Mr. Laughlin and Mr.' O’Brien. Mr. Laughlin was interested in having the railroad company elevate the grade of its road as far as possible, and something was said to Mr. Boschke as to what elevation they could get there, or to what elevation they could reach, and he got the impression and understood then that Mr. Boschke said he could reach an elevation of 60 feet, and witli.that elevation Mr. Laughlin was entirely satisfied. On August 9, 1909, Mr. Morrow called upon Mr. J. Monroe Grimes, the managing executor of the Sherar estate, to discuss the question of the right of way through the Sherar properties. Mr. Morrow testified that Mr. Grimes said that, so far as he was personally concerned, he would be very glad to donate the right of way; that the value of the property — its principal value — was as a power location, and that by the construction of the line of railroad it would enable them to develop the power plant; that, without it, it would be practically impossible to do so. He said, however, that in view of the fact that there were other heirs to the estate, and that they were widely separated, he could not reasonably satisfy them without some compensation, and they agreed that $1,000 should be paid for the right of way. They then went immediately to the office of Mr. Huntington, the attorney for Mr. Grimes, and the agreement was restated in his presence. Mr. Morrow testified further:

The witness testified that he was advised of the outstanding option on the Sherar property, and that on August 24th he met Mr. Walter S. Martin, the president of the complainant corporation, on the train coming from Salem, and the witness then learned that he, or his company, the complainant, was the prospective purchaser. The witness testified:

On the next day Morrow wrote to Huntington & Wilson, attorneys for the Deschutes Railroad Company, as follows:

This letter simply asserts that Martin had expressed a willingness to have the railroad company go upon the land and construct its line. It did not claim that Martin had consented to the railroad company constructing its line without regard to the terms that had been agreed upon concerning the protection of complainant’s power plant, and there is nothing in the following correspondence upon this subject that gives to Mr. Martin’s assent any waiver of such terms. Mr. Martin testified that the lands were required for hydroelectric possibilities, and, with respect to the interview with Mr. Morrow, he said:

This evidence, taken in connection with all the surrounding circumstances and conditions, indicates that the agreement or understanding of the parties was that the railroad was to be raised so as to protect the power plant to be located upon the lands now owned by the complainant, and the defendant was to protect such power plant by taking care of its own right of way through such lands.

The railroad was constructed along the Deschutes river and through the lands involved in this appeal, upon a maximum grade of eight-tenths of 1 per cent. Upon this grade the road reached an elevation above the sea of 779.6 feet at a point designated on the map as the “Interior Dam Sited’ At this point the elevation of the river, in March, 1909, was 722.1 feet; making the elevation of the road above the river 57.5 feet. On April 3, 1910, the elevation of the river was 716.3 feet; the elevation of the road above the river being at that time 63.3 feet. *412 On August 31, 1910, the elevation of’the river was 715.3 feet; the elevation of the road above the river being 64.3 feet. But it is plain from the testimony that, with the grade of the road as it has been constructed, a dam cannot be built at this point 60 feet in height above the river with safety to any interest connected with either the railroad or power plant properties without some method of protection on the part of the defendant; and we think the agreement to raise the elevation of the road to the grade to which it haá been carried was coupled with the agreement to protect complainant’s power plant by taking care of its own right of way through such lands. If this was not the agreement, then the raising of the grade by the defendant was useless and accomplished no purpose. Besides, it is obvious that the duty of the railroad company to take care of its own right of way is the usual and the only practical method of using such right of way to advantage.

Upon this question we have a practical demonstration of what the grade should have been, by a railroad constructed at the same time and under similar conditions, just across the river. At the same time the Deschutes Railroad was being built up the south bank of the river, the Oregon Trunk Dine was engaged in building a railroad up the north bank of the river. The distance between the two roads at the dam site is 551 feet. As a result of the negotiations between complainant’s predecessors in interest and the officers of that line of railroad for a right of way along the north bank of the river, that road constructed its grade at such an elevation that it passes the dam site at an elevation of 785.27 feet, or 5.6/ feet higher than the elevation of defend-: ant’s railroad.

G. A. Kyle, the chief engineer of the Oregon Trunk Dine, testified in this case that he did not consider a railroad constructed past the dam site, especially if a 60-foot dam is to be built there, would be safe at any less elevation than 70 feet. He accordingly raised the Oregon Trunk Dine to that height above the river. He had examined the roadbed of the Deschutes Railroad Company at and above the dam site. He did not consider it would be safe to construct a dam at that point 60 feet in height with the railroad constructed as it is, unless they used a great deal of riprap on the present banks. If plenty of riprap was placed there, he thought the danger would be slight. Of course, it might cave out in a few places where the rocks are of volcanic ash— in fact, it is nearly all volcanic ash for a short distance, but that could be riprapped, he supposed, and made perfectly safe.

Mr. Boschke, the chief engineer of the defendant railroad, was asked:

In the course of the cross-examination of this witness concerning a previous affidavit made in the case, he was asked this question:

The witness was asked:

[4] The conclusion we draw from this evidence is that the defendant, in accordance with the agreement or understanding had between the original parties and the subsequent acquiescence of the complainant, has constructed its railroad through complainant’s lands upon a grade that will permit the complainant to build a dam approximately 60 feet in height above the low water in the river, but that this agreement or understanding had this further condition, that, upon the building of such a dam, it would be the duty of the defendant to protect its roadway by riprapping, or by building a retaining wall along the river side of the fills and embankments of its right of way, so as to protect the same from injury by the water to be stored in the river and reservoir above such dam. This condition necessarily implies a duty on the part of the complainant, in the building of its dam, to use every reasonable precaution by the construction of a spillway, or other engineering device, to carry off such high water as may come down the river in flood seasons.

[5] 4. The defendant interposes the further objection to complain-, ant’s proposed dam, that the defendant has acquired certain lands by purchase and the right of way over certain other lands above the lands owned by the complainant; that the plaintiff has acquired no right. to raise the water of the river so as to flow upon any of the lands so acquired by the defendant, or back or over or upon its right of way, or to raise the waters of the river above its natural flow o.r above its natural fall.

It appears from the evidence that the fall of the river between the dam site and the south line of the northeast quarter of the southeast *414 quarter of section 9, township 4 south, range 14 east — the western limit of complainant’s lands — is approximately 25 feet. If the complainant acquires no other lands on the river above the lands mentioned, this would be the limit of the plaintiff’s right of reservoir or water storage and would correspondingly limit the height of the dam. But the statute of Oregon provides that persons, companies, and corporations having title or possessory right to the land, shall be entitled to the use and enjoyment of the water of any running stream within the state to furnish electrical power for any purposes, and may appropriate such waters, and shall have the right to condemn lands for certain uses, among others, for the sites of reservoirs for the storage of water for future use. Lord’s Oregon Laws, §§ 6552, 6553. The complainant, having the right of eminent domain, has authority to acquire thereby whatever lands are necessary for its resérvoir and water storage purposes, as and for a public use. See Grande Ronde Electrical Co. v. Drake, 46 Or. 243 , 78 Pac. 1031 ; Walker v. Shasta Power Co., 160 Fed. 856 , 87 C. C. A. 660 , 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 725; Henderson v. Lexington, 132 Ky. 390 , 111 S. W. 318 , 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 136.

The fact that the project is not now fully completed will not prevent the complainant from exercising its right to condemn; the right to complete a project so far completed is the essential right to condemn land for that purpose. When the project, corresponding to a dam 60 feet in height, is so completed, the defendant will be subject to the same conditions with respect to its right of way through such lands as it has undertaken to perform with" respect to the lands involved in this appeal.

[6] 5. The next objection to the decree comes from the defendant. The objection is that the court below treated the case as a condemnation suit and imposed the costs upon the defendant. The prayer of the defendant’s answer was that, in case the court refused to dismiss complainant’s bill, then it should determine the amount of damages sustained by the complainant, or to which complainant might be entitled by reason of the location and construction of defendant’s line over and across said property. In other words, the defendant’s answer was framed, in part, as a suit for equitable condemnation, and it was so treated by the court. The defendant made no tender and no offer to pay damages until after this suit was commenced. The costs were therefore properly imposed upon the defendant as the complainant in the condemnation suit.

6. The time has passed when a decree can be entered in this case based upon the conditions prevailing when the suit was commenced. The railroad has been built by the defendant and is now in operation through the lands involved in this appeal. The complainant acquiesced 'in the building of the road through its lands, upon the understanding and agreement had by the defendant with complainant’s predecessors in interest concerning the proposed dam, 60 feet in height above ordinary low water in the Deschutes river where it flows through such lands. This agreement provided for the protection of this dam and its use for hydraulic purposes in connection with appliances for the development of hydraulic and electric power for all purposes. The de *415 cree must therefore conform to the conditions prevailing when the decree was entered in the lower court.

The decree of the lower court is, accordingly, reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree': That the title to lands described as the north half of the southwest quarter (N. % of the S. W. %) of section 35, township 3 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian, and lot 2 (N. W. % of the N. E. of section 3, township 4 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian, was acquired by the complainant prior to the right of way claimed by the defendant. That the defendant entered upon and has occupied its right of way over such lands upon the condition that it would not interfere with, or deprive the complainant or its successors in interest of, the right to construct and maintain a dam for hydraulic purposes in the Deschutes river where it passes through.such lands, 60 feet in height above the ordinary low water in the Deschutes river, and the right to' install, in connection therewith, appliances for the purpose of developing hydraulic and electric power for all purposes; the defendant to protect such power plant and the appliances connected therewith by taking care of its own right of way through such lands by riprapping or by building retaining walls along the river side of the fills and embankments of its right of way, so as to protect the same from injury by the water to be stored in the river and reservoir above such dam; the complainant, in building its dam, to use every reasonable precaution by the erection of a spillway or other engineering device to carry off such high water as may come down the river in flood seasons. Upon the foregoing consideration, and the payment by the defendant to the complainant of the nominal sum of one dollar, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, the complainant will execute and deliver to the defendant a good and sufficient deed for the right of way through the lands described, 200 feet in width, being 100 feet on each side of the center line of the railroad track.

The decree will further provide: That the title to lands described as the southeast quarter (S. E. %) of section 34, township 3 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian, and southwest quarter of the northeast quarter (S. W. % of the N. E. %), west half of the southeast quarter (W. % of the S. E. %), and east half of the southwest quarter (E. % 'of the S. W. %) of section 3, northwest quarter (N. W. %.), and northwest quarter of the southwest quarter (N. W. *4 of the S. W. %) of section 10, all in township 4 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian, is in the complainant. That, in addition to the payment of $1,000 for the right of way through such lands, it shall be decreed, as a further consideration for such right of way, that the defendant shall not interfere with, or deprive the complainant or its successors in interest of, the right to construct and maintain a dam for hydraulic purposes in the Deschutes river where it passes through such lands, 60 feet in height above the ordinary low water in the Deschutes river, and the right to install, in connection therewith, appliances for the purpose of developing hydraulic and electric power for all purposes; the defendant to protect such power plant and the appliances connected therewith by taking care of its own right of way through such lands by riprapping or by building retaining walls along *416 the river side of the fills and embankments of its right of way, so as to protect ithe same from injury by the water to be stored in the river and reservoir above such dam; the complainant, in building its dam, to use every reasonable precaution by the erection of a spillway or other engineering device to carry off such high water as may come down the river in flood seasons. Upon the foregoing consideration, and the payment by the defendant to the complainant of the sum of $1,000, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, the complainant will execute and deliver to the defendant, a good and sufficient deed to a right of way through the lands described, 100 feet in width, being 50 feet on each side of the center line of the railroad track.

The decree will further provide: That the title to lands described as lot 1 (N. E. % of the N. E. J4) of section 3, and the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter (N. E. of the S. E. J4) of section 9, all in township 4 south, range 14 east, Willamette meridian, is in the complainant. That the defendant shall not interfere with, or deprive the complainant or its successors in interest of, tire right to construct and maintain a dam for hydraulic purposes in the Deschutes river where it passes-through such lands, 60 feet in height above the ordinary low water in the Deschutes river, and the right to install, in connection therewith, appliances for the purpose of developing hydraulic and electric power for all purposes; the defendant to protect such power plant and the appliances connected therewith by taking care of its own right of way through such lands by riprapping or by building retaining walls along the river side of the fills and embankments of its right of way, so as to protect the same from injury by the water to be stored in the river and reservoir above such dam; the complainant, in building its dam, to use every reasonable precaution by the erection of a spillway or other engineering device to carry off such high water as may come down the river in floo'd seasons. Upon the foregoing consideration, and the payment by the defendant to the complainant of the nominal sum of one dollar, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, the complainant will execute and deliver to the defendant a good and sufficient deed to the right of way through the lands described, 200 feet in width, being 100 feet on each side of the center line of railroad track.

When the complainant has completed its project by'the acquisition of title to other lands above those to which it now has title, the defendant will be subject to the same conditions with respect to its right of way through such lands as it 'is now decreed to perform with respect to the lands involved in this appeal.

The costs on this appeal will be divided equally between the complainant and the defendant.