Gilbert v. Fontaine
Decision Date | 26 October 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 7803.,7803. |
Citation | 22 F.2d 657 |
Parties | GILBERT v. FONTAINE et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Edward P. Marshall, of Tulsa, Okl. (C. E. Cooper and Bird McGuire, both of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
L. P. Brooks, of Wichita, Kan., for appellees.
Before WALTER H. SANBORN and BOOTH, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill on motion, upon the ground that it disclosed no right to equitable relief.
The suit was brought by appellant and another, since deceased, against the three appellees, M. M. Fontaine, Kansas City Refining Company, Sinclair Crude Oil Purchasing Company, and a fourth defendant Commercial National Bank of Independence, Kan. The purpose of the suit was to recover a judgment against the defendant Fontaine; to establish an equitable lien for the amount of the judgment upon the interest of Fontaine in a certain oil and gas lease and the products thereof, in which property two of the other defendants were alleged to claim an interest; and to foreclose the lien. The Commercial National Bank disclaimed any interest in the property. The other three defendants moved to dismiss the bill for want of equity. The court indicated that the bill disclosed a cause of action at law against defendant Fontaine, and offered to transfer the cause as to Fontaine to the law side of the court. Plaintiff refused to acquiesce in such a course. The bill was accordingly dismissed as to all three of the defendants.
The vital question on this appeal is whether the bill disclosed any right in plaintiff to equitable relief.
Omitting formal allegations, the bill alleges that on February 12, 1921, Fontaine and others as assigners transferred to Rogers, Nye, and Bittler an undivided 288/768 interest in and to an oil and gas lease covering southwest quarter (S. W. ¼) of the northwest quarter (N. W. ¼) of section 16, township 26, range 8, Butler county, Kansas, and also executed with Rogers, Nye, and Bittler a contract for the development of the lease; that pursuant to the contract Rogers, Nye, and Bittler entered upon the leased premises and drilled wells thereon productive of oil and gas; that said wells are still producing in considerable quantities; that on October 26, 1921, Rogers, Nye, and Bittler assigned and conveyed their interest in the lease to the Oliphant Petroleum Company, which company in turn on June 1, 1922, assigned and conveyed the said interest in the lease to the Turman Oil Company; that the lease, the assignments, and the contract were duly recorded; that said Turman Oil Company is now the owner of said interest in the lease; that pursuant to the assignments of said interest in the lease, and by virtue of said contract for the development of the lease, the Turman Oil Company succeeded to the rights, duties, and obligations of a co-owner or mining partner in charge of operations for oil and gas upon the leased premises; that plaintiff and another (now deceased) were on the 9th of September, 1924, duly appointed ancillary receivers of the Turman Oil Company by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, with the usual powers; that, since their appointment, said receivers by authority of said court have been in charge and have been conducting the work of operating the wells upon the leased premises; that defendant Fontaine is the owner of an undivided 13/64 interest in the lease, and by virtue of the said contract of February 12, 1921, became liable to pay 13/64 of the expense and cost of operating the lease and the wells on the leased premises for oil and gas; that, prior to the time of the appointment of the receivers, Fontaine had become indebted to said Turman Oil Company in the sum of $2,310.10, for her proportionate share of said expenses incurred in operating said lease, and since the appointment of the receivers Fontaine has become indebted to them in the further sum of $709.99 on account of expenses in operating said lease, no part of which sums has been paid; that the Turman Oil Company and the receiver are mining partners with Fontaine in the matter of the operation of said lease; that Fontaine has been receiving from the defendant Sinclair Crude Oil Purchasing Company, which is running the oil produced from the lease for the account of Fontaine, her proportionate share of the sale price of the oil produced from the lease; that Fontaine has appropriated said proceeds without paying her proportionate share of said expenses; that plaintiff as receiver of the Turman Oil Company has an equitable lien upon the interest of Fontaine in said lease to secure the payment of said indebtedness, and that the lien should be impressed also upon the oil produced and the proceeds from the sale thereof; that defendants, other than Fontaine and Sinclair Crude Oil Purchasing Company, and each of them, claim some lien, interest, or mortgage right in and to the interest of Fontaine in said lease; that the lien of plaintiff is superior to each and all said liens of defendants.
The contract of February 12, 1921, is attached to the complaint and made a part thereof. This contract recites that the first parties (Fontaine and others) have an ownership in the oil and gas lease described in the complaint. The lease and the contract both cover an additional forty-acre tract not here involved. The contract provides: "* * * First parties are desirous of securing the development of said premises for oil and gas, and said second parties Rogers, Nye, and Bittler, agree to develop the same on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth." It further provides:
The foregoing are the salient facts appearing in the bill. Upon the motions to dismiss and upon this appeal they must be taken to be true. Do they disclose any right to equitable relief on behalf of plaintiff? The answer to this question depends primarily upon the answer to a second question, viz.: Do the facts show the existence of a mining partnership between plaintiff and defendant Fontaine? The plaintiff contends for an affirmative answer; the defendants for a negative.
In 40 C. J. p. 1143 et seq., it is stated: "A mining partnership has been said not to be a true partnership, but rather a cross between a tenancy in common and a partnership proper, partaking in part of the nature of each." "No express declaration of partnership is essential to the establishment of partnership rights, where the intention of the parties may be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and their conduct with reference thereto." "A partnership may be formed to work mines owned or leased by any or all of the individual members, but the parties must be associated together in the ownership or possession of the property in some manner; and although an equitable interest is sufficient, there must be an interest in the property or a right to possession in the right of the partnership as distinguished from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blocker Exploration Co. v. Frontier Exploration, Inc., s. 85SC300
...which have addressed this issue. Gilroy v. White Eagle Oil Co., 201 F.2d 113 (10th Cir.1952) (applying Oklahoma law); Gilbert v. Fontaine, 22 F.2d 657, 661 (10th Cir.1927) (applying Kansas law); Edwards v. Hardwick, 350 P.2d 495, 501-02 (Okla.1960); Lyons v. Stekoll, 186 Okla. 94, 96 P.2d 6......
-
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Bokum Resources
...and a mining partnership referring to the early decision of Skillman v. Lachman, supra, in this regard. It was held in Gilbert v. Fontaine, 22 F.2d 657 (8th Cir.1927) now 10th Cir. that Kansas recognized mining partnerships with respect to oil and gas leases. BRC contends that Kansas is one......
-
Frontier Exploration, Inc. v. Blocker Exploration Co.
...expenses, had a community of interest, and participated minimally or not at all in management of the project. E.g., Gilbert v. Fontaine, 22 F.2d 657 (8th Cir.1927); Vicioso v. Watson, 325 F.Supp. 1071 (C.D.Cal.1971). However, we do not find these cases to be This line of cases recognizes th......
- Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Dixon