Fort Collins Milling & Elevator Company et al. v. Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company

[No. 8191.] Fort Collins Milling & Elevator Company et al. v. Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company. Water Rights — Irrigation—Change of Point of Diversion — Review of Decree. Under c. 6 of the Laws of 1911, a decree allowing a change in the point of diversion of water is to he reviewed hy writ of error. Error to Larimer District Court.—Hon. Neil F. Graham, Judge. Mr. H. N. Haynes, Mr. F. J. Annis and Mr. J. C. Ewing, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. L. R. Rhodes, for defendant in error. On motion to dismiss writ of error. Defendant in error under the provisions of sections 3226, 3231, Revised Statutes 1908, filed a petition in the court below for a change of the point of diversion of the Chamberlain ditch. Plaintiffs' in error filed objections to the proposed change. December 4, 1912, the court entered a decree permitting! the change as prayed, and the objectors or respondents, have brought the proceedings here for review on error. Defendant in error moves to dismiss upon the ground, among others, that the only method by which the judgment or decree in such proceedings can be reviewed is by appeal, as provided in section 3231 swpra, and the statutory provisions referred to in that section. [MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Gabbert] Mr. Justice Gabbert delivered the opinion of the court: Chapter 6, Session Laws 1911, entitled “An Act in Relation to Appeals and Writs of Error,” abolished appeals in proceedings of the character under consideration, and provided that decrees therein were reviewable on error.—Harrington v. Harrington, ante 155 decided at this term; Dennis v. The People, 55 Colo. 120, 133 Pac. 741; Session Laws, 1911—268, sec. 4. That is all we determine in passing on the motion to dismiss. All other questions raised by the motion may be presented on final hearing. The motion to dismiss is denied. Motion denied. Decision en banc.