Court Opinion

ID: 9817919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:00:17.213672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:41.864769
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We have examined the several propositions urged in petition for rehearing without discovering any sufficient reason for change in the conclusions heretofore reached.
In respect to the principal question in the case, it is but a reiteration of the view heretofore expressed, with only slight change in form, to say that a right to occupy a street for the purpose of putting in position and maintaining posts and electric current wires does not include the right to occupy each and every portion of such street, and the defendant violated the rule of “mutual accommodation” announced in the opinion heretofore handed down in this case. If the city of Norman had limited defendant’s right to that particular space and portion of the street which was necessary for the perfection of the growth of plaintiff’s trees, the question as to whether the city had acted in bad faith and had abused its exercise of power would still remain *743for determination before this case could be reversed; but there was no- compulson by the city in this regard, and there was no necessity for trimming these trees unless made by the voluntary and wrongful act of the defendant in setting its posts and stringing its wires where it did.
In our opinion the petition for rehearing should be denied, and there should be adherence to the original opinion.
By the Court: It is so ordered.