Court Opinion

ID: 9550952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:45:44.138962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:49.080501
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing. LUJAN, Chief Justice.  In our opinion on file, the fact was overlooked that defendant (appellant) in the answer filed by him had not questioned the use by plaintiff (appellee) of so much water from the springs in question as could be carried by a % inch pipe and in the answer defendant indicated a willingness to have plaintiff continue such use. We have no disposition to withhold from plaintiff any use of the waters, as between the parties hereto, which defendant in his formal answer indicates a willingness to concede plaintiff. Accordingly, and basing our direction solely upon the concessions contained in defendant’s answer, our former opinion is modified so as to direct the trial court, in reframing the decree to be entered herein, to incorporate therein such provisions as will permit and protect the plaintiff’s enjoyment in the use of such waters to the extent and by the means consented to by defendant in his said answer. Otherwise than as here modified, in order to accord with the concessions contained in. defendant’s answer, our former opinion is to stand as written. It is so ordered. SADLER, McGHEE and COMPTON, JJ., concur. COORS, J., did not participate.