Court Opinion

ID: 9665264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:43:40.122611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:14.311922
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellee, in her motion for rehearing, calls our attention to the following language in our opinion: “The record is completely silent as to the ownership of these two lots until they were purchased by appellant and appellee in 1945 and 1940 respectively.” The statement quoted is inaccurate in so far as it concerns the lot of ap-pellee. tier chain of title is substantially shown in the record. This, however, is immaterial. What we meant to emphasize is that since the laying of this line there is no showing that these various intervening owners knew of the existence of the line or asserted any adverse claim. Appellee refers to the quotation in the opinion from *6142 Tiffany and says that the easement was apparent because appellant’s plumber, “a person ordinarily conversant with the subject”, readily found the line upon his first inspection-. As we understand the 'evidence, appellee’s line was found accidentally while digging for' concrete foundations and for the purpose of re-laying appellant’s lines. The plumber was not searching for or seeking to determine where appellee’s line lay at the time of the discovery.
Believing the case has been correctly determined, we must adhere to our original decision and overrule appellee’s motion for rehearing.
No further motions for rehearing need be filed.