Show TIlE SUPREME COURT Reverses the Trial Courts In Two Cases ONE AN IRRIGATION SUIT INVOLVING WATERS OF THE SE VTER RIVER TS SANPETE The Other I the Case of Steinke Against Graves The Trial of the Fitzer Divorce Is Continued Mrs Tuckett Se k a Divorce On the Ground of Failure to Prvide Court Cullings Two opinions were yesterday handed down by the supreme court both reversals re-versals In the case of the Deseret Irrigation company and the Lemlngton Irrigation company appellants vs Samuel McIntyre McIn-tyre et aI the opinion was written by Justice Bartch and concurred in by Chief Justice Zane and Justice Miner and holds that the lower court erred in I dismissing the complaint and orders i that the case be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to set aside the order of dismissal and entertain 1 the action I The suit was brought t determine the I rights of the plaintiffs and defendants I to the waters of the Sevier river flowing flow-ing between a certain dam in Sanpete I county and the canals of the plaintiffs Iin Millard county and for a perpetual injunction to prohibit the defendants from using or interfering with the water of this river to which the plaintiffs t plain-tiffs are entitled I A motion to dismiss on the ground I that the court had no jurisdiction of the I cause was filed by defendants The motion was sustained and the action I dismissed I was contended by the defendants that the cause of action arose in San i pete county and the case could mot be tried in Mlllard county II The supreme court now holds it to leI le-I the setter law of the state both by constitutional provision and judicial construction that every suit must be i brought in the county In which the cause of action arises But when an act has been committed in one county I which caused injury to realty In another an-other it is held that suit may be I brought in either In such case the opinion says the cause of action maybe I may-be said to have arisen in either county I Counsel for respondents further contended con-tended that every trespass committed I on the waters of an appropriated stream gave rise to the cause of action I JSt et I tion alr favor of the owner of the water against the trespassers and that if the position taken by the appellant be correct cor-rect all such causes could be united in one action to quiet title and that though the trespass be committed in different counties it would needlessly multiply I parties and issues and give rise to lawsuits I law-suits which would require almost endless end-less time for trial Commenting on this point the court says The fallacy of such an argument may be easily detected when we consider con-sider for a moment the endless law suits which the respondents contention would entail and the needless expenditure expendi-ture incident to a multiplicity of suits where one would suffice The argument applied to suits to quiet title Is so opposed to economic and equitable principles as not to merit serious consideration |