(Download) "Missoula P.S. Co. v. Bitter Root Irr. Dist." by Supreme Court of Montana " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Missoula P.S. Co. v. Bitter Root Irr. Dist.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 07, 1927
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
Injunction ? Public Nuisances ? Pollution of City Water Supply by Irrigation Ditches ? Evidence ? Sufficiency ? Equity ? Appeal ? Findings ? When Conclusive. Equity ? Appeal ? Findings, When Conclusive. 1. On appeal in an equity case the findings of the district court will not be disturbed unless the evidence preponderates decidedly against them. Nuisances ? Irrigation Ditches ? Polluting City Water Supply ? Injunction ? Evidence ? Sufficiency. 2. Evidence in an action to enjoin an irrigation district whose canal crossed a creek which was the source of supply for plaintiffs plant furnishing the inhabitants of a city with water for domestic purposes, from releasing muddy canal waters into the channel of the creek, thus polluting the otherwise pure and wholesome water flowing therein to such extent as to render plaintiffs filtration plant virtually ineffectual and endanger the health of the citys inhabitants, held sufficient to warrant the judgment of the court that defendants acts constituted a public nuisance and enjoining their continuance. Same ? Right of Appropriator of Water to Turn Surplus Water into Stream Other Than One from Which He Takes It ? Proviso. 3. While section 7096, Revised Codes 1921, authorizes an appropriator to turn water into the channel of a stream other than the one from which he appropriates, he may do so only if the waters in the stream the channel of which he thus uses are not deteriorated in quality to the detriment of a prior appropriator thereof. Same ? Pollution of City Water Supply by Irrigation Ditches ? What not Defense Against Issuance of Injunction. 4. Defendant irrigation district having by its act endangered the health of the inhabitants of the city by polluting its water supply was not in position to complain that if the judgment enjoining it from releasing its canal waters into the stream from which that supply was obtained be enforced it would be compelled at a large expense to provide another escape for the canal waters, whereas if the plaintiff company would enlarge its water plant the objectionable - Page 65 feature of its act would be obviated; having been alone responsible for the situation created, it alone must bear its burden.