Anderson v. Keystone Supply Co.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1923
• Docket Number: Case Number: 11320
• Citation: 93 Okla. 224,220 P. 605,1923 OK 410
• Parties: ANDERSON v. KEYSTONE SUPPLY CO. et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1923 OK 410

220 P. 605

93 Okla. 224

ANDERSON v. KEYSTONE SUPPLY CO. et al.

Case Number: 11320

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 26, 1923

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Review--Judgment on Agreed Statement of Facts.

A judgment based on an agreed statement of facts is a mere legal conclusion on such facts, and the only question presented for review is the propriety of the judgment on the facts as agreed upon.

2. Mines and Minerals--Mining Partnerships--Personal Liability of Cotenant.

A. and D. were cotenants of an oil and gas lease. The agreed statement of facts shows that D. contracted certain debts in the drilling of an oil well thereon; that the creditors had no knowledge of the agreement whereby A. and D. became cotenants; that A. had no dealings with such creditors personally, and did not expressly authorize D. to contract such indebtedness, but that D. reported to A. the progress of the drilling from time to time; and that said debts were contracted by D. Held, no presumption arises from such cotenancy that A. and D. were mining partners, and, under said facts, they were not mining partners, and A. was not personally liable for such debts.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.

Error from District Court, Nowata County; C. W. Mason, Judge.

Action by Keystone Supply Company, Mike Roberts, sole proprietor, against C. F. Anderson et al. Judgment for plaintiff, and Anderson brings error. Judgment reversed in part.

J. C. Helms and C. L. Billings, for plaintiff in error.

E. J. Raymond and Geo. B. Schwabe, for defendants in error.

ESTES, C.

¶1 The Keystone Supply Company, as plaintiff, sued C. F. Anderson, Wilson Dillen, Jeanette Helms, James Harney, and Black, Sivalls & Bryson, a corporation, as defendants, in the district court on account of labor performed and supplies furnished for drilling an oil and gas well. Defendants Harney and Black, Sivalls & Bryson answered and filed cross-petition against Anderson and Dillen to foreclose their liens on leasehold interests of Anderson and Dillen in certain lands in Nowata county, and the American Glycerine Company intervened and filed cross-petition against same defendants and asked for same relief. There are other parties and matters not material herein. Issues being joined, the case was tried on an agreed statement of facts. Personal judgments were rendered against Anderson in favor of the plaintiff and in favor of cross- petitioners, Harney and American Glycerine Company, for amount of their respective claims and establishing liens therefor as concurrent, and ordering foreclosure and sale of said leasehold, and providing for deficiency judgments against Anderson.

¶2 Rendering of the personal judgments against Anderson on the agreed statement of facts is the only question in the case and is assigned as error. The following are the only facts stipulated that are material herein:

"Mr. Dillen made Mr. Anderson a proposition that he, Dillen, would drill a well for oil and gas on said lease and that he, Wilson Dillen himself, would do this work; that C. F. Anderson was to pay the sum of $ 1,150, to wit: the cancellation of the $ 750 and an additional sum of $ 400, which Anderson paid Dillen, that Dillen departed from Oklahoma City with one J. C. Davis as the employe of Mr. Dillen, that Mr. Dillen reported the progress of the drilling of said well on said lease to Mr. Anderson from time to time; that the said well proved to be a dry hole; that the said Wilson Dillen has long since absconded from the realm; that in fact he stated he had paid all of the bills in connection with the drilling of said well, which later proved to be untrue with reference to the claims sued on in this action; that the said Anderson after the completion of the said drilling learned that various bills were unpaid; that the said Anderson has no way of knowing the correctness of the claims of the various parties to this action; that the various accounts, as follows, to wit, are taken to be true and correct for the purposes of this statement (here follow amounts of said three judgments); that the three claimants above named had no knowledge of the agreement between Anderson and Dillen above referred to prior to the institution of this suit; that the said Anderson personally never had any dealings with any of said claimants and never saw them or talked to them personally or expressly authorized the said Wilson Dillen to make any contracts with said claimants for and in behalf of the said Anderson, although the ownership of said premises remained unchanged; * * * that said drilling and the said materials furnished by the various claimants above named were done and furnished at the instance and request of the said Wilson Dillen, one of the defendants herein."

¶3 On such agreed statement of facts it is the duty of the trial court, and of this court on appeal, to apply the law to the facts as agreed upon. Such statement should contain the ultimate facts of the case, presenting only questions of law, and not circumstances which may tend to prove the ultimate facts. Longmeyer v. Lawrence et al., 50 Okla. 457, 150 P. 905. The only question to be considered here is whether the facts as thus agreed upon sustain the personal judgment against Anderson and no inference of fact can be drawn. Goodwin v. Kraft, 23 Okla. 329. 101 P. 856. The judgment is a mere legal conclusion on such facts, and the only question presented for review is the propriety of the judgment on the facts so agreed upon. 4 C. J. 2543. In determining this question we...