American Beryllium & Oil Corp. v. Chase

• Decision Date: 21 March 1967
• Docket Number: No. 3536,3536
• Citation: American Beryllium & Oil Corp. v. Chase, 425 P.2d 66 (Wyo. 1967)
• Parties: AMERICAN BERYLLIUM & OIL CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Edmund CHASE, a/k/a Edwin Chase, and Mabel Chase, Appellees (Defendantsbelow).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 66

425 P.2d 66

AMERICAN BERYLLIUM & OIL CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Edmund CHASE, a/k/a Edwin Chase, and Mabel Chase, Appellees (Defendantsbelow).

No. 3536.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

March 21, 1967.

Robert A. Gish, Basin, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

Before GRAY, McINTYRE, and PARKER, JJ.

Mr. Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal involves an order of the trial court dismissing plaintiff's action for want of an indispensable party defendant.

There is no dispute as to the facts relating to the question involved. In June 1964 the defendants, as lessees, assigned to the plaintiff two oil and gas leases previously obtained from the State covering certain lands situate in Natrona County, Wyoming. Shortly thereafter the assignments were forwarded by plaintiff to the office of the commissioner of public lands for approval by the board of land commissioners. Prior to the time that the board acted upon the assignments the defendant Edmund Chase, by letter dated August 7, 1964, advised the commissioner that plaintiff had defaulted in performance of the consideration for the assignment of the leases and 'will not be able to handle the deal' and asked that the assignments be returned to him. This was done and the defendants have retained possession of the assignments at all times since. Plaintiff was not informed by the defendants that said assignments had been returned to them and acquired no knowledge thereof until sometime in November 1964. Thereupon demand was made for return of the assignments but defendants refused. Shortly thereafter plaintiff commenced the within action against the defendants, alleging among other things that the defendant Edmund Chase fraudulently and without authority obtained the return of said assignments and that without such assignments plaintiff was unable to obtain the approval of the board of land commissioners to the assignments and because of the defendants' actions had been unable to obtain possession of the premises. The relief sought was a judgment of the court requiring the defendants to deliver up to plaintiff the said assignments and damages for expenses incurred in attempting to obtain possession of the assignments and for loss of use of the premises.

During the trial of the case it developed that one G. W. Kirby, in the year 1961, had entered into an agreement with the defendants wherein it was recited that for certain considerations the defendants would assign one of the leases to Kirby. Apparently a similar agreement was made with respect to the other lease. These agreements were never recorded and during the trial were described by both parties and by Kirby as operating agreements. Pursuant to the agreements Kirby took possession of the lands embraced within the leases and he was shown on the records of the board of land commissioners as the operator for at least one of the leases. At the time plaintiff obtained the assignments from the defendants it knew that Kirby was in possession and that he was claiming an interest in the leases. Although Kirby testified at the trial that he had a one-half interest in each of the leases, the documentary evidence does not bear him out; the public records disclose no such interest; and there is no substantial evidence to indicate that his interest was anything more than that of an 'operator.' While there is other testimony relating to the interest of Kirby, the foregoing is sufficient for our purposes.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case in chief the defendants moved for an order of dismissal on the ground that the evidence adduced conclusively established 'the absence of an indispensable party defendant, namely, Mr. Kirby.' The motion was directed at plaintiff's claim for delivery of the assignments. The motion was overruled at that time but was renewed after all the evidence had been submitted and, as stated, the trial court granted the motion.

Whether or not Kirby was a proper party to the action in...