Rio Grande Dam Irrigation Company v. United States
The general object of this suit-which was brought by the United States in one of the courts of New Mexico on the 24th day of May, 1897-was to obtain an injunction to prevent the Rio Grande & Dam Irrigation Company from constructing and maintaining a dam across, and a reservoir over and near, the Rio Grande river at a certain point in that territory. In the court of original jurisdiction the suit was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory; but that judgment was reversed by this court, with instructions to set aside the decree of dismissal, and to inquire whether the intended acts of the defendants in the construction of a dam and appropriating the waters of the Rio Grande would substantially diminish the navigability of that stream within the limits of present navigability; and, if so, to enter a decree restraining those acts to the extent that they would so diminish. United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co. 174 U.S. 690, 708, 710, 43 L. ed. 1136, 1143, 1144, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770. The mandate date of this court to that effect was executed by the supreme court of the territory, and the cause went back to the court of original jurisdiction with directions to proceed in accordance with that mandate.

The cause was again heard in the court of original jurisdiction, that court denying a motion, in behalf of the United States, for a continuance in order that it might more fully prepare its case. The suit, on final hearing, was again dismissed, and that judgment was sustained by the supreme court of the territory. But this court reversed the decree of the latter court, and remanded the cause, with instructions to reverse the decree of the court of original jurisdiction, and with directions 'to grant leave to both sides to adduce further evidence.' United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co. 184 U.S. 416, 424, 425, 46 L. ed. 619, 622, 623, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428. The mandate of this court to the above effect was executed, and the case was again placed on the docket of the court of original jurisdiction.

For a full statement of the issues and facts up to this point in the litigation, reference is made to the opinions of this court as reported in 174 U.S. 690, and 184 U.S. 416.

The record shows that on the 7th day of April, 1903,-after the last decision in this court,-the United States, by leave of the court of original jurisdiction, filed a supplemental complaint, which set forth the then status of the case. That complaint referred to the defendant's plea, stating that it had complied with the requirements of the act of Congress approved March 3d, 1891, repealing timber culture laws and for other purposes (26 Stat. at L. 1095 1102, chap. 561, §§ 20, 21),  and 'had acquired a right to construct said dam and direct said water by reason of compliance with the terms of said act.' It then proceeded: '2. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant's plea above referred to, claiming a right to construct said dam under the said act of Congress approved March 3d, 1891, chap. 561, was filed on June 26, A. D. 1897, and that its articles of incorporation and proof of its incorporation, and the map and survey of its reservoir, had been filed and approved by the Secretary of the Interior long prior to the filing of said plea, as appears from an inspection of said plea itself. 3. Plaintiff further alleges that in and by § 20 of the said act of March 3d, 1891, above referred to, it was provided 'that if any section of said canal or ditch shall not be completed within five years after the location of said section, the rights herein granted shall be forfeited as to any uncompleted section of said canal, ditch, or reservoir, to the extent that the same is not completed at the date of the forfeiture;' and that although five years since the filing and approval of said articles of incorporation, proofs of organization, maps, and surveys have long since elapsed, defendant has not complied with the requirements of said act, but has failed to construct or complete within the period of five years after the location of said canal and reservoir any part or section of the same, and the same has, by reason thereof, become forfeited. 4. Plaintiff further alleges that during all of said time, except from May 24th, 1897, to —1897, the date when the temporary injunction was dissolved, the said defendants have been in no wise hindered, restrained, or prevented from complying with the provisions of said act by any judicial order or process whatsoever. 5. Wherefore, plaintiff prays to be permitted to file this supplemental bill of complaint, and that the same be considered upon the hearing of this cause, and that the defendants be decreed to have forfeited all the rights they may have had or claimed under and by virtue of said act of March 3d, 1891, not hereby admitting, however, that the defendants ever acquired any rights under and by virtue of said act. Plaintiff further prays that the injunction, and all other relief prayed for in and by said amended bill of complaint, be granted, and that said injunction be made perpetual, and that it have and recover its costs expended in this cause, and thus plaintiff will ever pray.'

A copy of this supplemental complaint was served on the attorney of the defendants on the day (April 7th, 1903) it was filed. More than forty days thereafter, on the 21st day of May, 1903, a decree was entered finding the allegations of the supplemental complaint-no demurrer, answer, or other pleading having been filed thereto-'are confessed and are true.' The court further found 'that the articles of incorporation and the map, survey of the reservoir of the defendant corporation, the Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Company, were filed with the Secretary of the Interior prior to the 26th day of June, A. D. 1897, and were, prior to said date, approved by the Secretary of the Interior; and it further finds that the said defendants have not completed its said reservoir or said ditch, or any section thereof, within five years after the location of the said reservoir and its said ditch line, or within five years after the approval of the same by the Secretary of the Interior; and the court further finds that five years since the filing and approval of the said articles of incorporation, proof of organization, maps, and surveys of the said reservoir and ditch line of the defendants had long since elapsed prior to the filing of the said supplemental bill, and that the defendants had not complied with the requirements of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1901, under which the same were filed, but has failed to construct or complete, within the period of five years after the location of the said canal and reservoir, any part or section of the same.' And it was adjudged 'that the rights of the said defendants, or either of them, to so construct and complete the said reservoir and said ditch, or any part thereof, under and by virtue of the said act of Congress of March 3, 1901, be and the same are hereby declared to be forfeited. It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court, by reason of the premises, that an injunction be, and the same is hereby, granted against the said defendants, enjoining them from constructing or attempting to construct the said reservoir, or any part thereof, and that the same be made perpetual.' (By an amended decree filed October 5th, 1903, and entered nunc pro tunc as of May 21st, 1903, the date given as March 3d, 1901, in the decree was made to read March 3d, 1891, in order to conform to the actual date of the act of Congress intended to be referred to both by the United States and by the court.)

A statute of New Mexico, in force at the time and before the above decree was rendered, provided: 'Every pleading subsequent to the complaint shall be filed and served within twenty days after service of the pleading to which it is an answer, demurrer, or reply.' N. M. Comp. Laws 1897, title 33; Code Civ. Proc. chap. 1, art. 4, subsec. 46.

On the 31st of October, 1903, the defendants moved the court to vacate the order allowing the supplemental bill to be filed, and that they be permitted to come in and answer the supplemental bill. This motion was denied, and, upon appeal to the supreme court of the territory, the action of the trial court on this point was sustained. The former court, at the same time, March 2d, 1906, adjudged that the right of the defendants, or either of them, to construct and complete its reservoir and ditch, or any part thereof, within the time required by the act of Congress of March 3d, 1891, was forfeited. It was also adjudged that the defendants be enjoined from constructing, or attempting to construct, the said reservoir or any part thereof. The injunction was made perpetual. From that judgment the present appeal was prosecuted.

Messrs. William W. Bride, Frederick S. Tyler, and Charles A. Douglas for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from page 271 intentionally omitted]

Solicitor General Bowers for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 272-273 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court: 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision