Mosby v. Manhattan Oil Co.
Decision Date | 02 October 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 9052.,9052. |
Parties | MOSBY v. MANHATTAN OIL CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Byron Spencer, of Kansas City, Mo. (H. M. Langworthy, Frank H. Terrell, Scott W. Bovey and Robert G. Merrick, all of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Henry L. Jost, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellees.
H. H. Booth, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellees Manhattan Oil Co. and Phillips Petroleum Co. R. E. Cullison and C. C. Julien, both of Bartlesville, Okl., for appellee Empire Gas & Fuel Co.
Before KENYON and BOOTH, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants after demurrers to plaintiff's evidence had been sustained and verdict had been directed in favor of defendants.
The action was one for damages claimed to have resulted from a nuisance alleged to have been created and maintained by defendants.
The second amended complaint alleged the following facts in substance: Plaintiff is the owner of a large ranch in Greenwood county, Kan., and is engaged in raising and fattening cattle thereon. The ranch is traversed by a stream known as the West branch of the Fall river, which is the only source of water supply for said cattle. During the spring and summer of 1926, plaintiff placed a large number of cattle upon said ranch for the purpose of raising and fattening them. During said time, defendants were drilling for and producing oil on land adjacent to the east of said ranch and on a small portion of said ranch. The land on which the drilling operations were carried on was higher than plaintiff's ranch and drained onto and over the same and into the stream which traversed plaintiff's ranch. Defendants concurrently and continuously in the spring and summer of 1926, in drilling for and producing oil, as stated, permitted large quantities of salt water and crude oil to escape from wells, pumps, and collection pools into said stream, and the said salt water and oil was carried down said stream and through and upon plaintiff's ranch, and accumulated in depressions on said ranch, and spread over said ranch, and made said ranch unfit for stock-raising, and deprived plaintiff of the proper use of his ranch — all to his damage. Plaintiff learned of the pollution of the stream about June 25, 1926. Cattle will not fatten when the water supply is polluted in the manner and to the extent that said stream was polluted. Owing to said pollution of said stream, the cattle on plaintiff's ranch did not fatten as they otherwise would have done, all to plaintiff's damage. Plaintiff was put to added expense in trying to furnish food and proper drink for said cattle. Defendants acted knowingly and in wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights in permitting said salt water and crude oil to escape into said stream and to be carried down said stream and through and upon plaintiff's ranch.
On the trial there was evidence tending to prove the ownership of the ranch and cattle thereon by plaintiff, the drilling operations for oil by defendants, the escape of salt water and crude oil in connection with said drilling operations into said stream and down the same through plaintiff's ranch, and damages suffered by plaintiff by reason of the pollution of the stream. There was no proof of concert of action between the several defendants in permitting the escape of salt water and oil from their respective plants, but the evidence tended to prove that, although the three defendants were conducting their oil operations separately, each independently of the others, they all concurrently permitted salt water and crude oil to escape from the places where they were conducting their operations and enter the stream which flowed through plaintiff's ranch, at a point or points immediately above or just below the place where the stream enters the plaintiff's ranch. The evidence further tended to prove that the salt water and refuse crude oil, so permitted to escape from the places of the operations of the three defendants, subsequently became diffused with the water of the stream, causing its pollution, so that it became unfit and unhealthful for the cattle to drink.
One of the grounds of the motions by defendants for a directed verdict was as follows: "Because it appears from the petition, and from the evidence, that there is a misjoinder of parties and of causes of action herein, and that if plaintiff has any cause of action against this defendant (which defendant does not concede but to the contrary denies) plaintiff is obliged under the law to pursue such remedy in a separate action and suit against this defendant."
It was upon this ground that the trial court granted motions for an instructed verdict.
In an opinion1 accompanying the granting of the motions, the court said:
The first main question which arises is whether the present suit could be maintained in the courts of the state of Kansas. The leading Kansas cases follow:
Kansas City v. Slangstrom, 53 Kan. 431, 36 P. 706. The city diverted a stream and made an embankment below Slangstrom's property, and then made a sewer through the embankment. The sewer was too small. The Orchard Place Land Company thereafter extended the sewer through its land. The latter part broke down. Plaintiff's land was flooded. Plaintiff sued the city and the company, and charged that the combined wrongdoing of defendants caused the injury. Held,
Arnold v. Milling Co., 86 Kan. 12, 119 P. 373, 374. Action was brought by Arnold against the milling company, railway company, et al., for damages caused by defendants obstructing the flow of a river. The complaint alleged the milling company and other defendants had obstructed the flow by a dam; that the railway company, in building a bridge, had constructed an embankment which operated to dam the river; that these acts and these obstructions, operating jointly and contemporaneously, caused the river to overflow, to the damage of plaintiff. On motion, plaintiff was ordered to state his cause of action against the railway company and against other defendants separately. Plaintiff refused. The action was dismissed. Held error. The court said: "The averments, in effect, are that the misfeasances charged against each operated jointly and contemporaneously in producing the overflow." It is to be noted that there was no concert of action; but that the combined acts of the defendants produced the results.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Conservation Chemical Co.
...injury resulting from multiple causes has been applied in many contexts, without constitutional challenge. See, e.g., Mosby v. Manhattan Oil Co., 52 F.2d 364 (8th Cir.1931); Manhattan Oil Co. v. Mosby, 72 F.2d 840 (8th Cir.1934); Edmonds v. Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U.S. 256, ......
-
Burkett v. Globe Indemnity Co
...F. 900, 38 C. C. A. 541; Higgins v. Central R. R. Co., 155 Miss. 176, 31 Am. St. Rep. 544; Curtiss v. Campbell, 76 F.2d. 84; Mosby v. Manhatten Oil Co., 52 F.2d 364; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Babcock, 154 U.S. 190, 14 S.Ct. 38 L.Ed. 958. By reference to the allegations in the declaration and ......
-
Burg v. Knox
...163, 220 S.W. 839; Newlin v. Railroad Co., 222 Mo. 375, 121 S.W. 125; Yost v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 245 Mo. 219, 149 S.W. 577; Mosby v. Manhattan Oil Co., 52 F.2d 364; Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U.S. 11, 26 L.Ed. 442. (2) The right to maintain this action is substantive, and not merely reme......
-
Kennedy v. Union Elec. Co. of Mo.
...187 S.W. 260; Standley v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 121 Mo.App. 537, 97 S.W. 244; Martinowsky v. Hannibal, 35 Mo.App. 70; Mosby v. Manhattan Oil Co., 52 F.2d 364, denied 284 U.S. 677, 52 S.Ct. 131; Montgomery Light & Water Power Co. v. Charles, 258 F. 723; Brown v. C., B. & Q.R. Co., 195......