Case Name: EDMUNSON v. EUGENE PLYWOOD COMPANY et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1948-12-21
Citations: 184 Or. 683
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDMUNSON v. EUGENE PLYWOOD COMPANY et al.
Judges: Before Rossman, Chief Justice, and Lusk, Belt, Bailey and Hay, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 184
Pages: 683–685

Head Matter:
Argued September 22;
affirmed December 21, 1948
EDMUNSON v. EUGENE PLYWOOD COMPANY et al.
200 P. (2d) 949
Mark V. Weatherford, of Albany, argued the cause for Appellants. With him on the brief was David B. Evans, of Eugene.
W. P. Biddlesbarger and Windsor Calkins, of Eugene, argued the cause for Respondents. On the brief for Respondent, Eugene Plywood Company, were Calkins & Calkins, of Eugene. On the brief for Respondent Giustina Bros. Lumber Company, were Harris, Bryson, Riddlesbarger & Butler, of Eugene.
Before Rossman, Chief Justice, and Lusk, Belt, Bailey and Hay, Justices.

Opinion:
LUSK, J.
Plaintiffs are the owners of a tract of land 138.17 acres in area in Lane County, Oregon. They brought this action to recover from the defendants the sum of $98,550.00 damages alleged to have been caused by water negligently permitted to escape from log ponds built and maintained by the defendants and reaching the plaintiffs' land.
The case was tried to the court without a jury under a stipulation that the evidence in the case of Conger et al. v. Eugene Plywood Company et al., 200 P. 2d 936, this day decided, should apply so far as applicable. The court considered and decided the two cases together, and in each entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and a judgment favorable to defendants. Plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment in the instant case.
The evidence to support the allegations of the amended complaint, on which the case was tried, as to the alleged negligence of the defendants and the cause of injury to plaintiffs' land, is the same as that in the Conger case. The findings of fact are identical save for the findings identifying the parties and describing the land. Upon the question whether there is substantial evidence to support the Circuit Court's findings to the effect that the defendants' ponds have not leaked and that water from snch ponds has not reached the plaintiffs' land, the opinion in the Conger case is applicable here; and since, as shown in the opinion in that case, there is substantial evidence to support the findings, they are binding on this court.- Sexton v. Kelly, 200 P. 2d 950, this day decided; Silver Falls Timber Co. v. Eastern & Western Lumber Co., 149 Or. 126, 211, 40 P. (2d) 703.
It follows that there should be the same decision, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.