Carpenter v. Scott

• Decision Date: 03 March 1925
• Docket Number: Case Number: 15202
• Citation: 235 P. 162,109 Okla. 207,1925 OK 168
• Parties: CARPENTER et al. v. SCOTT et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1925 OK 168

235 P. 162

109 Okla. 207

CARPENTER et al. v. SCOTT et al.

Case Number: 15202

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 3, 1925

Syllabus

¶0 1. Conversion--Parties Defendant.

All persons who engage in the conversion of personal property are jointly and severally liable to the owner for the value thereof.

2. Same--Recovery Sustained.

Record examined; held, to support judgment for the plaintiffs.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4.

Error from District Court, Carter County; W. F. Freeman, Judge.

Action by W. J. Scott against Ardmore Standard Oil Company, Arch Carpenter, Claud Holden, Paul Frame, and D. C. Mayfield, for conversion of oil well casing. Judgment for plaintiff. Arch Carpenter and Claud Holden bring error. Affirmed.

Sigler & Jackson, for plaintiffs in error.

Riddle & Dudley, for defendants in error Paul Frame and D. C. Mayfield.

Eddleman & Eddleman, for defendants in error.

STEPHENSON, C.

¶1 The Ardmore Standard Oil Company, while engaged in drilling operations in Carter county, borrowed 135 feet of ten inch oil well casing from the plaintiff and agreed to return the same. Arch Carpenter and Claud Holden were stockholders and members of the oil company. The oil company, through Carpenter and Holden and other members of the concern, reached the agreement to sell the drilling rig and property of the oil company to D. C. Mayfield and Paul Frame. Carpenter and Holden knew that the casing was the property of the plaintiff, prior to the commencement of negotiations for the sale of the company's property. These parties did not advise Frame and Mayfield of the title to the casing at the time the sale was first considered. The question of the casing being the property of the plaintiff came up for discussion among the stockholders and officers of the oil company during the negotiations for the sale. Some of the stockholders insisted that the casing should not be included in the bill of sale. The purchasers declined to acquire the property unless the casing was included in the sale. Carpenter and Holden insisted that the casing should be sold to the purchasers along with the property of the company in order to satisfy the purchasers. It is clear from the testimony that the purchasers, and Carpenter and Holden, knew that the casing was the property of the plaintiff at the time of the sale of the property. There is some testimony to the effect that Carpenter and Holden agreed to satisfy the plaintiff for the casing sold to the purchaser of the oil company's property. The plaintiff commenced his action for the conversion of the casing, against the oil company, Carpenter, and Holden, and the purchasers of the property. The trial of the cause resulted in judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Carpenter and Holden have appealed the cause to this court for review.

¶2 The main contention of the plaintiffs in error is that the plaintiff's action was for conversion. Therefore, plaintiffs in error assign error for the introduction of evidence to the effect that Carpenter and Holden agreed to pay the plaintiff for the casing which was sold and transferred to the purchasers. Further error is assigned for receiving in evidence an unsigned letter written on the...