
    EMPIRE GAS & FUEL CO. et al. v. WEDDELL.
    No. 17608.
    Opinion Filed Dec. 6, 1927.
    (Syllabus.)
    1. Appeal and Error — Landlord and Tenant —Questions of Fact as to Exemplary Damages — Tenant’s Right to Sue for Damage to Crop.
    Syllabus paragraphs 1 and 2 of Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Denning, 127 Okla. 145, 261 Pac. 929, are adopted as the syllabus in this case.
    2. Trial — Refusal of Requested Instructions Where General Charge Sufficient.
    It is not error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction when the instructions which are given fully inform the jury as to the law governing the rights of the litigants as measured by the pleadings and the evidence.
    Error from District Court, Stephens County; M. W. Pugh, Judge.
    Action by W. E. Wedde'l against the Magnolia Petroleum Company, Empire Gas & Fuel Company et al. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Karl F. Griffith and Womack, Brown as Cund, for plaintiff in error Lone Star Gas Company.
    C. C. Julien and J. J. Hedrick, for plaintiff in error Empire Gas & Fuel Company.
    W. P. Z. German and A. F. Molony, for plaintiff in error Skelly Oil Company.
    Victor C. Mieher, for plaintiff in error Amerada Petroleum Corporation.
    B. B. Blakeney and Hubert Ambrister, for plaintiff in error Magnolia Petroleum Company.
    James A. Yeasey, L. C. Owen, and Walter Davison, for plaintiff in error Carter Oil Company,
    John Rogers, for plaintiff in error Mc-Man Oil & Gas Company.
    H.B. Lockett, for defendant in error.
    oPS # V c ■ • Q 02 P g 50 H V tf-o\ co w o • pP ¡H ! .-p, J é
    
   PHELPS, J.

This cause is almost identical with cause No. 17609, Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. C. A. Denning, opinion in which lms this ray been filed. (128 Okla. 145, 261 Pac. 929).

The two eases were filed in the same court on the same day and there were only a few days intervening between the trials and the same questions are presented in the appeals, and we, therefore, adopt the syllabus and opinion in cause No. 17609 as the syllabus and opinion in this cause.

In addition to' the questions presented and determined in that cause, ’appellants present the question that the court erred in refusing to give their requested instruction to the effect that it was the jury’s duty to determine what damages the crops sustained by reason of the oil and gas flowing over them and what damages were done by the overflow of water and give the plaintiff judgment for such damages only as they might find to have been caused by the oil and salt water. The court committed no error in refusing to give this instruction, for the reason that plaintiff was seeking only such damage as was caused directly and proximately by the escaping oil and salt water, and the measure of damages and plaintiff’s right to recover were fully set out and measured in the general instructions that were given.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.  