The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is the owner of the northeast one-quarter of the southwest one-quarter of section 24, township 6 south of range 4 west of the Willamette meridian, in Polk County, Oregon. Since 1910, Ps have been and now are the owners of 160 acres of land in Polk County, and said lands adjoin those of D on the north for a distance of one-half mile. There were and now are located upon D's land several springs from which flows an adequate supply of pure water to supply all the uses and demands of D's property, as well as the uses and demands of P's property for its dairy and poultry business. The properties of both parties have sections where the well water in that section is unsatisfactory for domestic use. Until 1944, the only water P had on their lands for domestic use came from wells dug thereon. P was obliged to and did haul pure water from places off their premises. One such place was a stream that flowed from the springs on Ds' property. P contends that in February, 1944, they entered into an oral agreement with C. M. Purvine, now deceased, whereby it was agreed that P might have the use of one of the springs located upon Ds' land for domestic purposes if they would apply to the state engineer and obtain a permit to use the water and then improve said spring and pipe the water therefrom to P's premises at their own expense, and that P might have, in addition to said water and the use thereof, a right of way across Ds' premises to locate said pipe line. P also claims the further right to go upon said premises to repair the system whenever necessary. P asserts that the rights given to them were intended to be, and were, permanent. Ds admit that P was given oral permission by C. M. Purvine to use water from the spring in question and to construct the means of conveying that water from the spring across the lands of Ds to the property of P. Ds claim that the rights so granted were intended to be, and were, temporary in character and, therefore, subject to revocation. There is no dispute between the parties but that P expended substantial sums of money in purchasing and laying the pipe necessary to convey this spring water to their premises and in installing a water system in the buildings on their premises to be served. The trial court dismissed the claim. P appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.