Court Opinion

ID: 9828438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:22:20.505571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:48.095295
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees in their motion for a rehearing point out an inaccuracy in the original opinion which we are glad to correct. The oil involved in this suit was not pumped from the county bridge; only the first 400 barrels pumped by appellees into appellant’s tank truck was pumped from the bridge. When appellant put his pump into the creek he did so from the bank, and *166went upon the land of Spessard in doing so. However, we do not think this fact alone should change the conclusion to be reached.
Appellees further contend that inasmuch as the jury found that appellees had impounded the waste crude oil in Petronila Creek by nailing a board dam across the creek, and appellant has not presented an assignment of error asking that said -finding be set aside for want of evidence to support it, that such finding is conclusive as to all parties and cannot be collaterally attacked. This contention is unquestionably true and this finding by the jury must be taken as conclusive. However, the fact that the jury found that appellees stopped or impounded the waste crude oil by constructing a board dam across the creek does not preclude an inquiry into whether or not waste oil thus stopped on a natural water course is in such possession of the person building the dam as to constitute him the owner of the oil.
We have considered appellees’ motion for a rehearing and same will be overruled.