Title: SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. v. BLAIR
Citation: 178 Okla. 361, 1935 OK 829, 65 P.2d 180
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 17, 1935

SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. v. BLAIR Annotate this Case SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. v. BLAIR 1935 OK 829 65 P.2d 180 178 Okla. 361 Case Number: 24689 Decided: 09/17/1935 Supreme Court of Oklahoma SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. BLAIR et al. Syllabus ¶0 Syllabus adopted. The syllabus in cause No. 24688, Shell Petroleum Corporation, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. George A. Wilson et al., Defendants in Error, handed down by this court on this date ( 178 Okla. 355 , __ P.2d __), is hereby adopted as the syllabus herein. Appeal from District Court, Payne County; Freeman E. Miner, Judge. Action by Dassie Blair et al. against the Shell Petroleum Corporation et al. Judgment for plaintiffs against defendant named, and it appeals. Reversed and remanded. Joe T. Dickerson, Geo. W. Cunningham, Ralph G. Harder, C. W. Talbot, Stuart R. Carter, and John C. Quilty, for plaintiff in error. Brown Moore and R. J. Shire for defendants in error. BAYLESS, J. ¶1 The plaintiff in error, Shell Petroleum Corporation, a corporation, defendant below, appeals from a judgment of the district court of Payne county, Okla., based upon the verdict of a jury in favor of Dassie Blair et al., plaintiffs below and defendants in error herein. Other parties were also defendants in the trial court, but passed out of the matter either by rulings of the trial court or by verdict of the jury. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court. ¶2 The plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of 80 acres of land in Payne county, Okla., and that this land owned by them was adjacent to a certain tank farm owned and operated by the defendant. ¶3 This tank farm of defendant was the same tank farm as the one involved in case No. 24688, Shell Pet. Corp. v. George Wilson et al., 178 Okla. 355 , 65 P.2d 173 , this day decided by this court. ¶4 The facts out of which the cause of action involved herein arose are the same as those involved in case No. 24688, supra. The cases were tried separately, but the material portions of the testimony in each case are identical. The trial of the case resulted in a verdict in favor of General Oil Salvage Company, a copartnership, which was also a party to case No. 24688, supra, and a judgment against the defendant, which was a defend, ant in case No. 24688, supra. ¶5 The propositions of law presented in this appeal by the defendant are the same as those presented in case No. 24688 supra, and it will serve no useful purpose to repeat herein what we said in that case. ¶6 Therefore, upon the authority of case No. 24688, supra, and our opinion therein, the judgment of the trial court in this case is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court.