Overview
Case summary
The Altoona Quicksilver Mining Company sued the Integral Quicksilver Mining Company in ejectment to recover possession of the 'Boston Ditch' and appurtenant water rights in Trinity County, California. Altoona alleged ownership and possession for 15 years until Integral ousted them in 1893. Integral claimed title, asserting Altoona had abandoned the ditch and Integral had taken possession in 1892. At trial, the jury found for Altoona. On appeal, Integral argued the trial court erred in its jury instruction on abandonment, erred in denying requested instructions, and that ejectment does not lie for a water ditch. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding: (1) the abandonment instruction correctly stated California law requiring concurrence of act and intent, and the five-year nonuser rule from Smith v. Hawkins did not apply because evidence did not show continuous nonuser for five years; (2) the given charge sufficiently covered the requested instructions; and (3) under California law, ejectment lies for a ditch itself as land, not merely an incorporeal hereditament, following Reed v. Spicer and other cases.
Abstract
Plaintiff sued defendant in ejectment to recover possession of a mining ditch and associated water rights, alleging long-term ownership until ousted by defendant, who claimed abandonment and its own possession. At trial, the jury ruled for plaintiff, and on appeal, defendant challenged jury instructions on abandonment and the applicability of ejectment to a ditch. The appellate court affirmed, holding the abandonment instruction correctly required act and intent without a strict five-year nonuser rule applying, the instructions adequately covered defendant's requests, and ejectment lies for the ditch as real property.
Opinion of the court
opinionGILBERT, Circuit Judgejoined by ROSS, HAWLEY
- Abandonment of water right requires concurrence of act and intent under California law
- Smith v. Hawkins' five-year nonuser rule inapplicable on facts
- Ejectment lies for ditch as land under California law
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Action of ejectment in federal circuit court
- Writ of error to Circuit Court of Appeals
Procedural posture
- Instruction on abandonment
- Denial of requested instructions
- Whether ejectment lies for ditch and water rights
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Instruction followed California law as stated in Utt v. Frey; evidence did not show continuous nonuser for five years required under Smith v. Hawkins
Issue preserved for review
abuse of discretion
Given charge sufficiently covered points in requested instructions
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Under California law, ejectment lies for ditch itself as land, not merely incorporeal hereditament; complaint described ditch, not just water course
Issue not preserved
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Trial court's jury instruction on abandonment was incorrect under California law — jury instruction · no error foundNot applicable as no error found
- Trial court denied defendant's requested jury instructions — procedural · no error foundNot applicable as no error found
- Ejectment does not lie for water ditch and water rights — procedural · no error foundNot applicable as no error found
Statutory interpretation
1Standards of review
- Jury instruction on abandonment — de novo Legal correctness of jury instruction reviewed de novo
- Denial of requested jury instructions — abuse of discretion Trial court's refusal of requested instructions reviewed for abuse of discretion
- Whether ejectment lies for ditch — de novo Legal question of whether cause of action exists reviewed de novo
Timeline
Defendant located and took possession of Boston Ditch, claiming plaintiff had abandoned it
Defendant's basis for claiming title
Defendant wrongfully ousted plaintiff from possession of Boston Ditch
Alleged act triggering ejectment action
Circuit Court of Appeals affirms trial court judgment
Outcome: Affirmed
Final disposition of appeal
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
4 facts- Plaintiff (Altoona) sued defendant (Integral) in ejectment to recover possession of 'Boston Ditch'
- Plaintiff alleged ownership and possession for 15 years until defendant ousted them on August 29, 1893
- Defendant claimed title and pleaded plaintiff had abandoned the ditch and water right, and defendant had located and taken possession on May 2, 1892
- Jury verdict for plaintiff
Procedural history
3 steps- Trial in Circuit Court for Northern District of California
- Jury verdict for plaintiff
- Defendant sued out writ of error to Circuit Court of Appeals
Evidence in the record
- Witness testimony about nonuser of ditch at various periods
- Testimony that portion of ditch unused for up to ten years
- No witness testified to continuous nonuser of entire ditch for five years
- Evidence type: Testimony on nonuser · Challenge basis: relevance · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Evidence relevant to abandonment issue · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Jury
- Instruction on abandonment requiring concurrence of act and intent
- Instruction that abandonment is question of fact
- Instruction that yielding up possession and nonuser are evidence of abandonment but rebuttable
- Instructions on effect of intention to abandon without actual abandonment
- Instructions on nonuser without intention to abandon
- Instructions that use must be actual and for beneficial purpose
Objects of relevance
Authorities
Cited authorities (6)
Statutes
- California Civil Code §§ 1410, 1411 (water appropriation and abandonment)
Standards & doctrines
- De novo review of legal questions
- Abuse of discretion review for jury instructions
- California law on water rights abandonment
Legal principles applied
- Abandonment is question of fact for jury
- Ejectment requires recovery of possessory interest in land
- State law governs substantive property rights in diversity case