OCR Text |
Show river In Montana. Even the courts of Canada, he said, might assert their right lo take cofmlzanco of the conditions condi-tions In the United States nffectln? land lying along streams which How across the borders of two countries. ITER AND LAND SUIT Involving State Rights and Jurisdiction of the Courts Washington, Jan. IS A controversy between citizens of the states of California Cali-fornia and Nevada, involving the right to use for Irrigation and other pur-pofies pur-pofies the waOer of th Walker river, which flow In both states, and attacking attack-ing the jurisdiction of the United States circuit coirt In Nevada to Interfere Inter-fere in tho title rights to lands In Cal. Ifornia, wan argued In tho supremo court of tho United States today. The case was originally entitled: "Miller and Lux vs. Thomas P. Rickey." Rick-ey." The plaintiffs own about 23,u00 acres of land In Nevada, Ivlng along the Walker river, and the defendant, defend-ant, Rickey, and associates hold title to about 40,00') acre located In California Cali-fornia along tho headwater of the same river and alovo the Miller & Lux property. Miller & TUt begun the original aetloti In the Urdtcd States circuit court in Nevada in 1902, to restrain the Rickey interest from using the waters of thA Walker river in'Cali-lornla, in'Cali-lornla, which they; allegod deprived them of their supply In Nevada. Rlck ey pleaded lack of Jurisdiction on the part cf the court, but Judge Hawle of tho United States circuit court of Nevada held that he had a right to regulate the titles to land In Call, fornla. The defendants then brought Milt In tho superior court of Mono county. California, against Miller & Lux to quiet title to the California land. Judge Hawley, upon application of Miller &, Lux, enjoined this action on the pround of an Invasion of the jurisdiction of tho federal court. Tbe circuit court of appeals at San Francisco, Fran-cisco, sustained the injunction and the case reached tho United States supreme court oa appeal of the Nevada Ne-vada parties from that affirmance. The case is similar to that wherein where-in the waters of the Arkansas river were In dispute between the citizens of Kansas, and Colorado some years ago. and which was decided finally in favor of Colorado. Tho decision In that ease, however, was founded 'ipon the presumption that the people of Colorado would be more seriously damaged by a decision against them than would the people of Kansas. In tho present case, the court Is expected- to decide the ownership of the waters of a river running through two or more statej and also the question ques-tion whether the courts of one state have a rlpht to render decisions affecting af-fecting the titles of land lving within anoth'-r state. Ch -tries C. Bnnton, attorney for tho Rickey lntorets, denied this rl(;ht In his argument to.la. He declared that the old question of state right was again Involved In this case. If the precedent were eetabllfhed In this case, ho assorted, the courts ot IMililana or of any other state lylr.2 along the lower parti of the Mississippi Missis-sippi river, might assume to regulate regu-late the titles of land lying as far away as Iho banks of the Missouri |