Southport Petroleum Co. of Delaware v. Fithian

• Decision Date: 12 April 1943
• Docket Number: 36842.
• Citation: 13 So.2d 382,203 La. 49
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: SOUTHPORT PETROLEUM CO. OF DELAWARE v. FITHIAN et al.

13 So.2d 382

203 La. 49

SOUTHPORT PETROLEUM CO. OF DELAWARE v. FITHIAN et al.

No. 36842.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

April 12, 1943

Prowell & McBride and Oswald W. Viosca, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Harvey Peltier, P. D. Martinez, and Hubert A. Lafargue, all of Thibodaux, for appellees.

PONDER, Justice.

The appellant, Gwen Russ, one of interpleaded defendants, has appealed from the judgment of the trial court in a concursus proceeding. The appellant complains of the judgment of the trial court only insofar as it recognizes five claimants as privileged creditors to certain funds deposited in the Registry of the Court.

The Southport Petroleum Company of Delaware purchased $6,735.96 worth of crude oil from Taylor Fithian, the operator and lessee produced from two oil wells located on the Rebstock-Orgeron lease in the Golden Meadow oil field in Lafourche Parish. The Southport Petroleum Company instituted these concursus proceedings, alleging that it did not know to whom it owed the purchase price of the oil because of the numerous claimants, some holding liens and others claiming royalties. The plaintiff deposited in the Registry of the Court $4,196.56 in cash and a guaranty from the Standard Supply and Hardware Company, Inc., for $2,539.40, the amount previously paid it by the plaintiff.

All of the various claimants to these funds were interpleaded. Among those claiming a privilege on the funds deposited in the Registry of the Court were Spell Brothers, Guy E. Talcott Guy Scroggins, holders of labor liens on the oil wells and equipment; Krause & Managan, Inc., holder of a lien for services furnished, and W. J. Picou Transfer Company, holder of a lien for trucking and hauling.

The trial court, in its judgment, recognized the lien and privilege of these five claimants on the oil wells and equipment and held that this privilege extended to the funds deposited in the Registry of the Court, which were derived from the sale of the oil.

The appellant concedes that the claimants have a lien and privilege on the oil wells and equipment, but contends that such liens and privileges cannot be extended to the oil produced from the wells and to the funds derived from its sale.

The sole question, therefore, presented for our consideration is whether or not Act No. 145 of 1934 gives a lien on the oil produced from the wells and the funds derived from its sale.

Upon an examination of the jurisprudence of this State, we do not find that this question has ever been entertained by this Court. However, in other states it has been held that statutes containing similar provisions to Act No. 145 of 1934 only grant a lien on the oil wells, fixtures and appliances located on the leasehold, and the privilege cannot be extended to the oil produced from the wells. It will be noted that those statutes, as well as Act No. 145 of 1934, do not mention a lien upon the oil produced. Stanolind Crude Oil Purchasing Co. v. Busey, 185 Okl. 200, 90 P.2d 876; Black v Giarth, 88 Kan. 338, 128 P. 183; Crowley v. Adams Bros. & Prince, Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 883.

From an examination of Act No. 145 of 1934, we find no mention of a lien on the oil produced, and it is obvious that this could not be included under any of the terms of the statute, unless a lien upon a well should be deemed a lien upon the oil flowing through it. The oil is not a part of well...