CITY OF EDMOND v. BILLEN

CITY OF EDMOND v. BILLEN
1934 OK 706
38 P.2d 564
170 Okla. 37
Case Number: 22390
Decided: 12/11/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CITY OF EDMOND
v.
BILLEN et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Municipal Corporations--Liability to Riparian Owner for Damages Caused by Pollution of Stream With Sewage.
Where a municipal corporation discharges sewage into a river or creek, polluting the water of the stream, causing it to become foul and impregnated with noxious and poisonous substances, rendering it unfit for domestic or other uses, and thereby creating and maintaining a nuisance, which is detrimental to the health, comfort, and repose of a lower riparian owner and diminishes the value or destroys an established business of such riparian owner, such municipal corporation is liable for damages arising from the maintenance of such nuisance.
2. Appeal and Error--Review--Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Verdict.
After the trial of an action at law and the submission of an issue of fact to a jury under proper instructions, on appeal this court will not reverse the judgment if there is any competent testimony that reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury.

Appeal from District Court. Oklahoma County; T. G. Chambers, Judge.

Action by Peter Billen and another against the City of Edmond. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John Roaten and Hayson & Lukenbill, for plaintiff in error.
Shirk, Danner & Phelps, Charles E. Earnheart, Samuel O. Neff, and Howard Davis, for defendants in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county in favor of the defendants in error, the plaintiffs in the trial court, against the plaintiff in error, the defendant in the trial court.

¶2 The plaintiffs complained of the actions of the defendant in dumping sewage into a natural water course running through the farm of the plaintiffs. No complaint was made as to the amount of the verdict and judgment.

¶3 In its brief the defendant presents but three questions: First, the failure of the trial court to give a requested instruction; and second, the giving by the trial court of instructions numbered 5 and 6.

¶4 The requested instruction was not justified by the pleadings or the testimony. The instructions given were justified under the rule stated by this court in City of Cushing v. High, 73 Okla. 151, 175 P. 229; City of Tecumseh v. Deister, 112 Okla. 3, 239 P. 582; City of Collinsville v. Brickey, 115 Okla. 264, 242 P. 249; City of Enid v. Brooks, 132 Okla. 60, 269 P. 241, and City of Sayre v. Rice, 132 Okla. 95, 269 P. 361.

¶5 The authorities relied upon by the defendant are largely decisions of other courts. The decision of this court in St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Burrous, 29 Okla. 378, 118 P. 143, is not applicable.

¶6 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.