Court Opinion

ID: 9832286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:47:35.400768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.300858
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
On motion of appellant we make the following additional conclusions of fact:
1. That the 10,000 acres of new land cultivated on the Neches Canal and its tributaries in 1925 were neither adjoining nor contiguous to the canal or laterals of said company in 1913 and were not included within the appropriation of March, 1913, or any subsequent appropriation. .
2. Appellants excepted to the special issues submitted to the jury regarding the water carried to Port Arthur, on the ground that such issue was not raised by the pleadings or the evidence.
3. Appellants further excepted to the judgment and verdict as being against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
4. Appellants requested a peremptory instruction and excepted to the action of the court in submitting the case to the jury.
The other additional findings requested by appellants are refused. We have given most careful consideration to appellants’ motion for rehearing, and it is in all things denied,except as to the additional conclusions of fact given, supra.