Clark v. Mercer Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | 18501. |
| Citation | 281 P. 283,139 Okla. 48,1929 OK 405 |
| Parties | CLARK v. MERCER OIL CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
No provision for the partition of personal property has been provided by the statutes of this state.
Property of a personal character, owned in common, may be partitioned among its several owners, where the nature of the property is such that its division in kind is possible and practical. If the property is not susceptible of such a division, then a distribution will be made which seems to be more nearly equivalent to possession in severalty. This may be effectuated by a sale and an equitable division of the proceeds among the owners, or by an actual division of the property, or otherwise, as may be equitable. The power to make such partition or division of the personal property belongs exclusively to courts of equity. Beardsley v Kansas Natural Gas Co., 78 Kan. 571, 96 P. 859.
In order to procure a partition of personal property, the facts must be pleaded and proven which indicate loss in the value of the property, mismanagement, irreconcilable differences as to the disposition or control of the property, or other peculiar circumstances which justify equitable action.
The nature of an oil and gas mining lease, the estate represented, and the rights and obligations imposed thereby are such that the fixed rules of law for partition, as provided by the statutes of Oklahoma, are not sufficient to protect the rights of the owners thereof, and partition of an oil and gas mining lease, owned in common, among its several owners, may only be had in a court of equity.
The report of commissioners appointed by a court of equity to make partition of an oil and gas mining lease among its several owners is only advisory to the court. Such commissioners do not have the authority given to commissioners to make partition under the statutes providing for partition of real estate.
Error from District Court, Okmulgee County; James M. Hays, Judge.
Action by the Mercer Oil Company against H. E. Clark and another. From an adverse judgment, defendant Clark appeals. Affirmed.
W. J Peterson, of Okmulgee, for plaintiff in error.
Malcom E. Rosser, of Muskogee, for defendant in error.
The land involved in this action belonged to the Bockler family. Two of the adults executed an oil and gas mining lease to one Deaner, thereafter the guardian of the four minor children executed an oil and gas mining lease to Deaner, and thereafter the other adult owner executed an oil and gas mining lease to Deaner, thereby giving to Deaner three separate oil and gas mining leases, each covering the entire tract of land, and all granting to Deaner the entire leasehold interest in the property. Thereafter Deaner, by mesne conveyances, conveyed a one-half interest in the three leases and a one-half interest in all the personal property used in connection with the operation thereof to the defendant in error, who was the plaintiff in the trial court and who will be hereinafter referred to as plaintiff. The other one-half interest was conveyed by mesne conveyances to the plaintiff in error, who was one of the defendants in the trial court, and who will be hereinafter referred to as defendant. The other defendant in the trial court disclaimed any interest in the property involved in the action.
After the acquisition of the title by plaintiff, there was considerable controversy between the plaintiff and the other owners of the leasehold rights, and that controversy continued after the acquisition of the one-half interest by the defendant. The trial of the case was complicated somewhat by the failure of the plaintiff, in giving testimony, to differentiate between the statements and acts of the defendant and the statements and acts of the defendant's predecessors in title. However, the record shows sufficient competent evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court as follows:
"The court further finds that differences and disagreements have arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant H. E. Clark, and that on account of the differences, disagreements, and misunderstandings that have arisen between the parties it is impossible for them to carry on and operate the leases covering said land as joint owners, and that the interests of the parties require that said property be partitioned."
And this leaves for consideration by this court three legal questions: (1) Is the particular property involved in this action subject to partition? (2) If so, can it be partitioned under the statutes of Oklahoma providing for partition? And (3) if it cannot be partitioned under the applicable statutes of Oklahoma providing for partition, can it be partitioned in equity?
The petition of the plaintiff was in regular form for partition of real estate. A general demurrer was sustained to that petition, and the petition was then amended by inserting therein a statement of facts, which the trial court considered sufficient to authorize the overruling of a general demurrer thereto, and the same was done.
After making the finding hereinbefore set forth, the trial court rendered a judgment determining that the plaintiff and defendant were each owners of an undivided one-half interest in the property, ordering the same "partitioned," and appointing three commissioners to "* * * partition and set off in severalty the above described property to and between the parties in the proportions of one-half each, and they are further ordered and directed that, if they find from a view of the property that it is incapable of equitable division in kind, they shall appraise said property at its fair and reasonable value, and that they make due report of their proceedings herein to this court within 20 days from this date."
Motion for new trial was overruled, supersedeas bond was given and approved, and the cause came here on appeal from the order denying new trial.
The evidence shows that at the time of the trial the total production from the property and the six wells located thereon was approximately 10 barrels per day. The defendant presents to this court five assignments of error, as follows:
"(1) Said court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial.
(2) Said court erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff in error to the amended petition of defendant in error.
(3) Said court erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff in error to the evidence introduced by defendant in error in support of said amended petition.
(4) Said court erred in holding that the decree and judgment is sustained by sufficient evidence and is according to law.
(5) Said court committed errors of law occurring at the trial and duly excepted to by said plaintiff in error."
In support of the first assignment the defendant contends that under the applicable statutes of Oklahoma there is no provision for the "* * * partition of an oil and gas mining lease or leasehold estate for oil and gas purposes, or for any other chattels," and that the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has never determined whether or not an oil and gas mining lease may be partitioned. He relies upon the case of Beardsley v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 78 Kan. 571, 96 P. 859, 860, in which it was said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial