Atlas Supply Co. v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 06 April 1937
• Docket Number: Case Number: 26135
• Citation: 68 P.2d 76,180 Okla. 100,1937 OK 217
• Parties: ATLAS SUPPLY CO. v. ROBERTS et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1937 OK 217

68 P.2d 76

180 Okla. 100

ATLAS SUPPLY CO. v. ROBERTS et al.

Case Number: 26135

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: April 6, 1937

Syllabus

¶0 COURTS - Receivers - Property Involved in Action to Enforce Lien Brought Into Custodia Legis Irrespective of Whether Court Takes Actual Physical Possession - Orders of Court of Concurrent Jurisdiction and Possession of Its Receiver Subject to Final Decree and Orders of Court of Prior Jurisdiction.

Where an action has been commenced to enforce a lien against specific property in a court of competent jurisdiction, the property involved in the action is brought into custodia legis, whether the court takes actual physical possession of the property or not, and it is subject to the power and control of the court, and no orders or judgments of any other court of co-ordinate or concurrent jurisdiction have any force or effect on its final decree or orders made in the enforcement thereof, and even though actual possession of the property is taken by a receiver properly appointed by another court of co-ordinate or concurrent jurisdiction pending the foreclosure proceedings, the possession of such receiver and the orders of such other court are subject to the final decree and subsequent orders enforcing the final decree of the court of prior jurisdiction.

Appeal from District Court, Hughes County; George C. Crump, Judge.

Consolidated actions by J.A. Roberts and others against Pringle & Marshall, a copartnership; the Atlas Supply Company intervening. From the judgment, intervener appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. L. Yancey, G.C. Spillers, Donald L. Brown, and E.M. Calkin, for plaintiff in error.

M.A. Dennis, Horsley & Epton, and Anglin & Stevenson, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The defendant in error, J.A. Roberts, commenced this action against Pringle & Marshall, a copartnership, in the district court of Hughes county, cause No. 9042, to foreclose his oil and gas well lien against the "Church Lot" oil and gas lease on June 5, 1933. On June 12, 1933, L.C. Jones filed suit against Pringle & Marshall in the district court of Hughes county, cause No. 9058, to foreclose his oil and gas well lien against the "Gentner and Atkins" oil and gas lease. Suit was also filed by J.J. Dooley in cause No. 9162 in the same court. The three cases were consolidated under cause No. 9042. There were numerous lien claimants and cross-petitioners in the consolidated case. On March 5, 1934, judgment was entered in consolidated case No. 9042, determining priorities, decreeing foreclosure, and directing the sale of the three oil and gas leases and properties involved to satisfy the judgment. On April 24, 1934, the district court of Hughes county appointed G.C. Eaton receiver to sell the properties to satisfy the decree of foreclosure.

¶2 On May 10, 1934, the plaintiff in error, Atlas Supply Company, a corporation, filed its petition in intervention in said consolidated cause No. 9042, alleging that on the 13th day of June, 1933, the Murray Tool & Supply Company, Inc., filed its certain cause in the district court in and for Tulsa county, Okla., being cause No. 56535, against Pringle & Marshall, to establish certain liens and obtain a judgment against Pringle & Marshall and praying for the appointment of a receiver, and that Neil Templeman was, on the 14th day of June, 1933, appointed and qualified and began to act as receiver for the property of Pringle & Marshall over property located in Tulsa county, and also property located in Hughes county, Okla., and that Neil Templeman, receiver, took possession of the oil and gas wells in Hughes county; that said receiver ascertained that the wells in Hughes county had ceased flowing, and that it was necessary that certain pumping machinery and equipment be purchased and installed in order that the wells might be made to produce oil, and that the said oil wells in Hughes county were at that time dead and failed to flow or produce oil and would not do so without the purchase and installment of the said pumping equipment; that receiver Templeman obtained an order from the district court of Tulsa county on the §§§ day of June, 1933, authorizing him to expend the sum of approximately $4,700 for the purpose of purchasing and erecting a derrick on the Gentner lease in Hughes county, and for the purpose of purchasing and installing tubing and rods and other incidental equipment on the Gentner lease and Atkins lease and authorizing him to execute his notes in payment for the material and equipment, and that pursuant to the order of the district court of Tulsa county, the Atlas Supply Company sold and delivered to receiver Templeman supplies and equipment for the purpose ordered in the total sum of $3,543.90, and while the receiver was operating said wells, furnished additional equipment in the sum of $575.70, and that the supplies and equipment inured to the benefit of the lien claimants and judgment holders in cause No. 9042 in the district court of Hughes county; and that if the receiver had not installed the equipment purchased from the Atlas Supply Company, the property would have deteriorated in value and would have been practically worthless, and that the lien and judgment holders in consolidated cause No. 9042 would have realized nothing therefrom. The Atlas Supply Company prayed for an order out of the district court of Hughes county directing the receiver, Eaton, to allow its claim as a preferred claim against the estate in his hands, and that the same be paid in preference to any of the judgments rendered by the district court of Hughes county, and that it have judgment for $3,543.90, together with interest thereon.

¶3 Prior to the filing of its petition in intervention, the Atlas Supply Company applied for a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in cause No. 25422, seeking to prevent the receiver appointed by the district court of Hughes county from taking possession of the leases involved in consolidated cause No. 9042 for the purpose of sale, which application was denied.

¶4 It does not appear affirmatively from the record when the summonses issued in cause No. 9042 and 9058 filed in the district court of Hughes county on June 5, 1933, and June 12, 1933, respectively, and the plaintiff in error does not raise this issue. Therefore, we assume that summons was duly issued in each case upon the filing of each petition in said court.

¶5 It does not appear that any of the lien claimants on the leases located in Hughes county were parties to cause No. 56525 in the district court of Tulsa county, nor does it appear that any of said lien claimants were notified of the receiver Templeman's application to the district court of Tulsa county for authority to purchase equipment and issue receiver's certificates for the payment therefor. Receiver Templeman, after his appointment by the district court of Tulsa county, took charge of the Hughes county property involved in consolidated cause No. 9042 in the district court of Hughes county, and operated the same until shortly prior to the time receiver Eaton took possession of the property. Receiver Eaton was appointed only for the purpose of selling the property and applying the proceeds of the sale to the payment of the lien claims of the parties in cause No. 9042 in the district court of Hughes county. Receiver Eaton, after his appointment, took possession of the property and sold the same and the sale was confirmed by the...