133 F.2d 536 (10th Cir. 1943), 2537-2539, Sinclair Refining Co. v. Burroughs

Docket Nº:2537-2539.
Citation:133 F.2d 536
Opinion Judge:HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:SINCLAIR REFINING CO. et al v. BURROUGHS et al. RAWLINGS et al. v. SAME. REZAC et al. v. SAME.
Attorney:Robert M. Williams, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Edward H. Chandler and Ralph W. Garrett, both of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellants Sinclair Refining Co. and Commonwealth Transp. Co. in No. 2537. Ray S. Fellows, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellant Stanolind Pipe Line Co. in No. 2537. Breck Moss, of...
Judge Panel:Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 20, 1943
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 536

133 F.2d 536 (10th Cir. 1943)

SINCLAIR REFINING CO. et al

v.

BURROUGHS et al.

RAWLINGS et al.

v.

SAME.

REZAC et al.

v.

SAME.

Nos. 2537-2539.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

January 20, 1943

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma; Edgar S. Vaught, Judge.

Action by J. E. Burroughs, trustee of the estate of David D. Aitken, deceased, against the Board of County Commissioners of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, for par value of drainage district bonds with interest and against Elbert F. Rawlings, against Cecilia Rezac and others, and against the Sinclair Refining Company, the Commonwealth Transportation Company, and the Stanolind Pipe Line Company for declaratory judgment, wherein the Board of County Commissioners of Pottawatomie County sought judgment against the Commonwealth Transportation Company and the Stanolind Pipe Line Company, Elbert F. Rawlings and Mrs. Elbert F. Rawlings and Cecilia Rezac and others appeal

Declaratory judgment for plaintiff, and judgment in favor of the Board of County Commissioners against the other defendants reversed.

Page 537

Robert M. Williams, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Edward H. Chandler and Ralph W. Garrett, both of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellants Sinclair Refining Co. and Commonwealth Transp. Co. in No. 2537.

Ray S. Fellows, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellant Stanolind Pipe Line Co. in No. 2537.

Breck Moss, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Hal Johnson, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellants in No. 2538.

R. M. Rainey, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Streeter B. Flynn and R. M. Rainey, Jr., both of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellants in No. 2539.

Byron Lamun, of Shawnee, Okl. (Claude Hendon, of Shawnee, Okl., on the brief), for appellees in Nos. 2537, 2538, and 2539.

Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge.

J. E. Burroughs, Trustee of the estate of David D. Aitken, deceased, instituted this action in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Board of County Commissioners of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, seeking recovery of $9,000, the par value of nine drainage district bonds, held by him together with interest thereon. The ground on which the action was predicated was that the County Commissioners negligently failed to collect assessments, misappropriated proceeds from the sale of time warrants issued and sold for the part of the assessment levied against the county as a whole, and in some instances canceled assessments on property in the benefit district chargeable with the cost of the improvement, and the payment of the bonds issued therefor. That as a result thereof the county became liable to appellee for the face value of the bonds and accrued interest thereon.

The petition also named Elbert F. Rawlings, Mrs. Elbert F. Rawlings, his wife; Cecilia Rezac; Aloysuis A. Schroepfered; Frank A. Schroepfered; Mary s. Schroepfered; August M. Schroepfered; Michael C. Schroepfered; Anna N. Schroepfered; William C. Schroepfered; Ester C. Schroepfered; and Frank Schumacher, as parties defendant. No personal judgment was asked against them. As to the, the petition alleged that they were the owners

Page 538

of property subject to valid liens, which liens had been wrongfully canceled by the Board of County Commissioners. Plaintiff asked for a declaratory judgment establishing the validity of the original assessments levied on their properties.

While appellants Sinclair Refining Company and the Stanolind Pipe Line Company were not formally named as parties defendant, plaintiff did ask a declaratory judgment against them establishing a lien against their property for the assessments levied against it in favor or the county.

The prayer of the petition was for judgment as follows: (1) That plaintiff have judgment against the county for $9,000 with interest thereon; (2) that the county be adjudged liable for the time warrants the proceeds of which were misappropriated, and that the drainage district sinking fund be entitled to recover such amount from the county; (3) that the original assessments on certain described tracts of real estate belonging to individual defendants which had been canceled constituted liens against said lands subject only to the lien of the state for ad valorem taxes; (4) that the assessment make against the Prairie Pipe Line Company and the Sinclair-Prairie Pipe Line were legal and valid liens on the property of said corporations; (5) that upon payment of the amount due plaintiffs, the county should be entitled to a lien upon the real estate of the individual defendants and on the property of the pipe line companies; (6) that the time warrant undisposed of be sold or cashed by the county commissioners and the proceeds applied on the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs and that a judgment assessment be levied against the property on the tax rolls of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP