Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001077 <br /> <br />Further b,.ioi'n .;ore 'vlrol'eupon filed .uy the parties and the cause <br />finally submitted ,;iay 23. last. <br /> <br />11; thus now oleal'ly appeal's that the water here in question is part of <br />the natural stream. See authorities oited in the foregoing opinion. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />The petition for rehearing was based upon the contrary assumption. <br />1'Ie quote therefroml "It would appear that the oourt has acted upon the <br />theory that suoh waters not only belonged to a stream. but were the waters <br />of a natural stream Which was tributary to the Arkansas River." * * * * <br />Nowhere has any suoh claim ever been made, e~cept in the briefs filed <br />by defendant in error and in the oral argument before this oourt." No <br />other question, raised by the record, is now argued. <br /> <br />In the light of this amended finding we have no doubt of the oorreot- <br />ness of our original opinion. Ue should here observe. however, that what <br />is therein said about the refutation of "any claim that peroolation or <br />seepage of any water belongs to the land owner," and the apparent oonflict <br />between section 1637, c. L. 1921, and the rule here followed must be con- <br />fined to the facts under oonsideration and limited striotly to suoh waters <br />as "belong to the stream." So interpreted that opinion is adhered to and <br />the judgment affirms d. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />./ <br /> <br />-4- <br />