This action involves respective water rights, claimed by appellant and respondents in Black’s Creek, alias Ten-Mile Creek, conflicting as to priority both in time and amount.

The assignments of error challenge only the findings of fact; thus, issues of fact alone are the essence of the controversy.

The evidence, though conflicting, is sufficient to sustain the findings of fact and the judgment is therefore affirmed. (Evans v. Davidson, 58 Ida. 600, 77 Pac. (2d) 661; In re Randall’s Estate, 58 Ida. 143, 70 Pac. (2d) 389; Eaton v. McWilliams, 52 Ida. 145, 12 Pac. (2d) 259; Walker v. Jackson, 48 Ida. 18, 279 Pac. 293; East *282 wood v. Standard Mines & Mill. Co., 11 Ida. 195, 81 Pac. 382; McKissick v. Oregon Short Line Ry Co., 13 Ida. 195, 89 Pac. 629; Patrick v. Bisbee, 52 Ida. 369, 15 Pac. (2d) 730; Gordon v. Sunshine Mining Co., 43 Ida. 439, 252 Pac. 870; Lisenby v. Intermountain State Bank, 33 Ida. 101, 190 Pac. 355.)

Costs awarded to respondent.