upr000285 228

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 of the 1 3OOP® of us®. our statutes giro this right only when the property already dedicated to a public use i s to be taken fo r a more necessary public use. When the taking is fo r the iden tical purpose fo r which the property is then being used i t cannot be said that the taking is fo r a more necessary public use* I f the water* fo r instance, was owned by an irrig a tio n company and was distributed by that eosrpeny as a public u t ilit y fo r the irrig a tio n of lands, the city , no doubt, would be able to condemn the same fo r the domestic use of it s Inhabitants as such a domestic us® would no doubt be hold to be a more necessary public use than us® fo r irrig a tio n . There has been no pertinent d efin itio n of the phrase "more necessary public use”. In Portneuf Irrig a tin g Go y. Budge, 100 Pae. 104$ at P* 1051 {Id a .) the court said! M£s we understand the matter, the .question here does not exactly arise as to the proposed work being a more necessary public work than the o rig in a l irrig a tio n pur- ? pose fo r which the canal is used. Certainly the fast that the proposed canal w ill irrig a te 2 0 ,0 0 0 acres, while the p la in t iff* s canal only irrig a te s 2,500 acres, does not make i t a more necessary public use. Gary Library v. B liss 25 if. 1, §j£ (M ass), 1 L.B.A* 771j West Hirer Bridge y . Dix, 12. L. Id . 535. In other words, the necessity is not measured .by the extent to which the us© is applied* Butte A. k P* 'Ey* Co. v. Mont. U.B.Co,, 1$ Moat. 504, 41 Pac* 238,. 31 L-# 1*A# 208, 80 Am. St* Hep* 5081 Thibet v, Hudson, 1$ Gray (Mass.) 417j Kettle Hirer H. Go. y. Eastern By. Co*, 41 Minn* 461, 48 if* W* 473, 6 L.B.A* I l l , " The cod© provisions of the State of C aliforn ia expressly pro* vide that the taking by a municipality is a more necessary public use and therefore the decisions of that state are not applicable. See Mono Power Go. vs. City of L* A* 284 Fed. 784 (Sort* denied $7 L* Id* 1214) That i t was not the intention of the legislatu re to gly® the city the righ t to condemn public u t i li t i e s operating within the city can also be inferred from subparagraph 5 o f Sec* 31 (1931 Statutes at P* 378) which reads: *11.