Case Name: LONE STAR GAS CO. et al. v. BURK
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1933-03-21
Citations: 162 Okla. 259
Docket Number: No. 21523
Parties: LONE STAR GAS CO. et al. v. BURK.
Judges: RILEY. O. J., CULLISON, V. C. X. and SWINDALL, McNBILL. OSBORN. BAY-LESS, BUSBY, and WELCH, JX, concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 162
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
LONE STAR GAS CO. et al. v. BURK.
No. 21523.
Opinion Filed March 21, 1933.
Karl If. Griffith, Womack, Brown & Ound, C. C. Julicu and J. J. Hedrick, for plaintiffs in error.
H. B. Lockett, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
ANDREWS, J.
This action was for the purpose of recovering a money judgment for damages alleged to have been sustained from salt water, waste oil, and other deleterious substances being permitted to escape into Walker creek. The district court of Stephens county overruled demurrers of each of the defendants herein to the evidence of the plaintiff and submitted the cause to a jury. The judgment of that court in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants conformed to the verdict of the jury. The two defendants appealed to this court.
It is contended that the judgment is not supported by the evidence. The rule with reference thereto is that such a verdict will not be disturbed if there was any competent evidence reasonably tending to support it.
While much of the damage sustained was caused by other defendants operating wells along the same water course, there was competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury against these defendants. The evidence against these defendants was in conflict with evidence in their favor, but under the rule this court is not privileged to determine the effect of conflicting material evidence. Such determination must bo by a jury.
The defendants contend that the verdict and judgment are clearly against the weight of the evidence. That rule is not applicable in this class of eases. They contend that there was error in overruling their demurrers to the evidence and their motions for instructed verdict. Since there was some competent evidence reasonably tending to support the claim of the plaintiff, there was no error in submitting' the cause to- the jury.
We find no reversible error in the cause, and the judgment of the trial court is af-flrmed.
RILEY. O. J., CULLISON, V. C. X. and SWINDALL, McNBILL. OSBORN. BAY-LESS, BUSBY, and WELCH, JX, concur.