Court Opinion

ID: 9864432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:06:06.512682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:10.590071
License: Public Domain

Smith, J., (on rehearing). In the petition for rehearing it is insisted that the facts in the instant case are not sufficiently like those in the case of Crosson v. Lion Oil & Refining Co. to be entirely controlled by it. It is pointed out that in the former case the oil had escaped from a pipe-line, thus indicating that it had previously been reduced to possession, while here only a portion of the oil had been impounded by the dam or levee which the owner of the well had built, whereas the larger part of the oil escaping from plaintiffs ’ well was never impounded by the levee but was spread over a large territory by the force of the gas in the well which caused it to run wild. It is the opinion of the majority — in which the writer does not concur — that no distinction is to be made between the oil that was impounded by the levee and the balance of it which escaped from plaintiffs’ well without being impounded. It was all plaintiffs ’ oil, and they had the right to recover it from any one found in possession thereof, or to sue for its conversion anyone who had appropriated it. This is true because plaintiffs by their efforts had brought the oil to the surface and had not abandoned it, but; on the contrary, asserted their title at all times to it, and they therefore have the right to recover the value of so much of the oil escaping from their well as they can show was converted by appellees. The petition for rehearing is therefore denied. ■