BARNSDALL OIL CO. v. JACKSON

BARNSDALL OIL CO. v. JACKSON
1937 OK 483
71 P.2d 719
180 Okla. 589
Case Number: 27541
Decided: 09/21/1937
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Barnsdall Oil Co.
v.
Jackson

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Discretion of Trial Court as to Issuance of Temporary Injunction.
An application for a temporary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of error or abuse of discretion.

Appeal from District Court, Osage County; Jesse J. Worten, Judge.

Suit by Jay Jackson against the Barnsdall Oil Company and the Tide Water Oil Company. From an order granting the plaintiff a temporary injunction, the defendants appeal.

M. D. Kirk, W. M. Fleetwood, Jr., Y P. Broome, and T. W. Francis, all of Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.
L. M. Colville, of Pawhuska, and H. R. Duncan, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

OSBORN, Chief Justice.

¶1 Jay Jackson, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, sued the Barnsdall Oil Company and Tide Water Oil Company, hereinafter referred to as defendants, for damages arising from the pollution of Delaware creek, a stream which traversed the premises of plaintiff and constituted a source of water supply for his stock. In addition to money damages, plaintiff prayed for the issuance of an injunction to "enjoin and restrain the defendants and each of them from the wrongful and illegal acts in permitting salt water, base sediment and deleterious substances to escape and flow into Delaware Creek. * * *" Upon the filing of the petition a temporary restraining order was issued. A motion to dissolve was filed and a hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court entered a temporary injunction enjoining and restraining the defendants from "deliberately permitting salt water, poisonous and other deleterious substances to escape into Delaware Creek." From said order defendants have appealed.

¶2 An application for a temporary injunction is addressed to the trial court's discretion, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of error or abuse of discretion. Cherry v. Sharp, 172 Okl. 241, 45 P. (2d) 70.

¶3 We have carefully examined the propositions of law and the authorities cited in support thereof, which are relied upon for reversal of this cause, and find no error or abuse of discretion.

¶4 The order is affirmed.