Court Opinion

ID: 9828178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:11:27.056024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:45.295252
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
On the motion of appellant we make the following additional conclusions of fact:
(a) “That appellant excepted to the 13th finding of fact in the 14th assignment of error, shown on pages 68 and 69 of the brief.”
(b) With the qualification that appellant had no proposition based upon the fourteenth assignment of error attacking the thirteenth conclusion of fact, and that the fourteenth assignment of error was referred to only by way of argument in support of the ninth and twelfth propositions, the second request is granted: “That the appellant briefed the 14th assignment in connection with the 9th and 12th propositions, the first asserting the right to an injunction irrespective of the degree of injury, and the latter one asserting the right to injunction by reason of the dam having been constructed in the ditch over the protest of the commissioners.”
(c) In its argument in support of the ninth proposition appellant made the following statement: “We submit that any finding that same was without injury is contrary to the undisputed evidence and necessarily against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.”
(d)“It further appears from the record that no riparian owner above the dam testified that he was not injured by the dam” and Judge Gordon testified “that none of said owners had complained to him of the dam, and that some of them had complimented him.” We decline to make the conclusion that there was no “testimony as to the effect of the dam upon the riparian owners or upon the drainage above the dam,” as requested by appellant. The. testimony of Mr. George White, now deceased, a civil engineer of twenty-six years’ experience in this county, given on the former trial, was reproduced on this trial and was sufficient, even had the thirteenth conclusion of fact been attacked by a proposition, as required by the rules of ■briefing, to support that conclusion. We do not review this testimony, because without a proposition the issue is not before us.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.