DIAMOND SHAMROCK O. & G. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF REV., ARK.

• Citation: 422 F.2d 532
• Decision Date: 10 March 1970
• Docket Number: No. 19754.,19754.
• Parties: DIAMOND SHAMROCK OIL AND GAS CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, STATE OF ARKANSAS, Marvin Humphries, Robbie Louise Humphries, H. F. Techmeyer, Jewel Techmeyer, Appellants, L. L. Blair, Heirs of L. L. Blair, Irene Sadler, Ocie B. Haraway, Inez Blaylock, Ardath Ferry, Clifford J. Blair, Larue Blair, Appellants, W. O. Dunaway, Margaret Dunaway, Charles H. Earl, Wanda F. Earl, Sneed Brothers, a Partnership Consisting of Four Brothers (S. T. Sneed, Jr., M. H. Sneed, Hugh M. Sneed and William J. Sneed), Arkansas Mineral Corporation, Jeff Regan, Alice T. Regan, Appellees, Frank Farris, Opal Farris, Carol Taylor Mohlman, Lena Farris, Eugenia Farris Rowe, Bertha A. Stubblefield, and Henry E. Spitzberg, Trustee, Appellee, Thomas C. Mueller, Norma Mueller, J. A. Mull, Jr., C. R. Sullivan and W. F. Earl.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

422 F.2d 532 (1970)

DIAMOND SHAMROCK OIL AND GAS CORPORATION, v. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, STATE OF ARKANSAS Marvin Humphries, Robbie Louise Humphries, H. F. Techmeyer, Jewel Techmeyer, Appellants L. L. Blair, Heirs of L. L. Blair, Irene Sadler, Ocie B. Haraway, Inez Blaylock, Ardath Ferry, Clifford J. Blair, Larue Blair, Appellants W. O. Dunaway, Margaret Dunaway, Charles H. Earl, Wanda F. Earl, Sneed Brothers, a Partnership Consisting of Four Brothers (S. T. Sneed, Jr., M. H. Sneed, Hugh M. Sneed and William J. Sneed), Arkansas Mineral Corporation, Jeff Regan, Alice T. Regan, Appellees Frank Farris, Opal Farris, Carol Taylor Mohlman, Lena Farris, Eugenia Farris Rowe, Bertha A. Stubblefield, and Henry E. Spitzberg, Trustee, Appellee, Thomas C. Mueller, Norma Mueller, J. A. Mull, Jr., C. R. Sullivan and W. F. Earl.

No. 19754.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 10, 1970.

Sam Sexton, Jr., of Sexton & Wiggins, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellants; Eddie N. Christian, Fort Smith, Ark., on the brief.

Charles W. Baker, of Moses, McClellan, Arnold, Owen & McDermott, Little Rock, Ark., for appellees; William L. Owen, Little Rock, Ark., on the brief.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and BLACKMUN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge.

A notice of appeal was filed in the District Court on April 18, 1969, reading as follows:

"The Defendants, H. F. Techmeyer, Marvin Humphries, Robbie Louise Humphries, Jewel Techmeyer, Irene Sadler, Ocie B. Haraway, Inez Blaylock, Ardath Ferry, Clifford J. Blair and Larue Blair, give notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the decision of the Court made and entered in this cause on the 18th day of April 1969."

The appellants in their brief state, "This is an appeal from the Order and Opinion of the Honorable Paul X. Williams, District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, entered on the 7th day of April, 1969." The opinion referred to is a letter opinion of Judge Williams dated April 7, 1969, addressed to counsel with copy to clerk, which appears in the printed record. Such letter reflects that Judge Williams reached the conclusion that the word "minerals" in deeds conveyed mineral rights including oil and gas. The letter goes on to say:

"The motion for summary judgment will be treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and such motion is sustained, and an order to that effect will be entered.

"The prevailing parties shall prepare and submit the judgment to be entered pursuant to this opinion and order of the court."

The notice of appeal refers to a judgment entered on April 18, 1969. The printed record shows no such judgment.¹

We are convinced that the letter opinion does not constitute a final decision or judgment. By its terms as above quoted, the subsequent filing of a judgment is clearly contemplated.

Moreover, a final decision is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S. Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911; Transportation-Communication Division v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 419 F.2d 933; Stewart v. Bishop, 8 Cir., 403 F.2d 674, 678; Gallon v. Lloyd-Thomas Co., 8 Cir., 261 F.2d 26.

Assuming for the purposes of this opinion without so deciding that the letter opinion could be considered a judgment, it is clear that the decision does not dispose of all of the issues raised by the litigation. The action is an interpleader action brought by the plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1335 wherein the plaintiff asserts that it has substantial amounts of accumulated oil royalties which it owes and which it offered to deposit and did deposit for the benefit of numerous adverse ...