Sherlock v. Greaves
Montana Supreme Court
76 P.2d 87 (1938)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Beginning in about 1865, miners constructed ditches to divert water from Crow Creek to use in mining operations near the town of Radersburg, Montana. The ditch owners allowed town residents to divert water from the ditches to irrigate lawns and gardens and for some domestic purposes. In exchange, the residents either worked repairing and cleaning the ditches or paid the ditch owners an annual fee. The ditches did not supply water to the town in the wintertime, when the town drew water from wells within its borders. The residents drew water from multiple ditches until about 1900, when the town began using water only from Swede Ditch. Several years later, town residents brought an action to adjudicate the amount and priority of water rights in Crow Creek. After an appeal up to the Montana Supreme Court, a decree allotted the water from Crow Creek among the ditch owners. By the 1930s, the successor ditch owners were farmers who used the water to irrigate crops. W.A. Sherlock and other farmers who owned the ditches (plaintiffs) sued asserting their rights under the prior decree and to keep W.E. Greaves and other town residents who were not farmers (defendants) from using water from the ditches. The town residents countered that they had paramount rights to use the water on multiple grounds, including prior appropriation of water from Crow Creek.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.