Craig v. Roxoline Petroleum Co.
Decision Date | 16 January 1934 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 23916 |
Citation | 1934 OK 7,39 P.2d 575,170 Okla. 307 |
Parties | CRAIG et al. v. ROXOLINE PETROLEUM CO. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Judgment--Plea of Estoppel by Judgment.
A right, question, or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies, although the subsequent suit is on a different cause of action; and a plea setting up the former adjudication of a fact, right, or question distinctly put in issue between the same parties or their privies is not a plea in bar, but a plea of estoppel by judgment. Identity of causes of action is not a necessary element in the plea of estoppel by judgment, but it is necessary that the point upon which the plea of estoppel by judgment is based is in issue in the latter case and was in issue and decided in the former.
Appeal from Superior Court, Oklahoma County; J. H. Swan, Judge.
Action by the Roxoline Petroleum Company against M. E. Craig and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
M. A. Dennis, W. C. Alley, and E. J. Gilder, for plaintiffs in error.
Estes & Fulton, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Okmulgee county in favor of Roxoline Petroleum Company, plaintiff in said action, against M. E. Craig, C. O. Craig, and M. A. Dennis, defendants therein, canceling a sheriff's deed and quieting title in plaintiff in 17 1/2 acres of land located in said county. Parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
¶2 On and prior to September 11, 1922, the legal title to the lands in controversy rested in Lester B. Gum for the use and benefit of the Roxoline Petroleum Company, and on that date he in such capacity entered into a written contract with the J. G. & O. Drilling & Leasing Company whereby said leasing company agreed to drill an oil well to the depth of 2,250 feet unless oil or gas was found in paying quantities at a lesser depth. In consideration for drilling the said well the Roxoline Company agreed to convey to said leasing company a clear title to a one-half interest in the fee of said land and one-half of all oil and gas produced, the other terms of the contract being immaterial to a determination hereof.
¶3 On September 27, 1923, M. E. Craig and C. O. Craig recovered judgment in the district court of Okmulgee county against the J. G. & O. Drilling & Leasing Company in the sum of $ 10,300; an alias execution was issued and levied upon the land involved together with the oil and gas leasehold estate. At that time there was some production of oil on said property. Sheriff's sale was had and a one-half undivided interest in the oil and gas leasehold estate and the fee was purchased by M. E. Craig and C. O. Craig at said sheriff's sale for $ 4,000 and said amount credited on the judgment against the J. G. & O. Drilling & Leasing Company. The sale was confirmed on March 10, 1927. This action was filed October 15, 1927. Thereafter M. E. Craig and C. O. Craig transferred one-half of their interest in said property to M. A. Dennis.
¶4 At the time of the execution of said contract it is disclosed that there was an oral agreement between J. H. Topp, president of the leasing company, and the said Gum to the effect that in the event the stockholders of the said leasing company refused to advance the necessary money for said drilling, E. Talbert, daughter of said Topp, and assistant secretary and treasurer of the leasing company, would undertake to carry out said contract. Topp later notified Mr. Gum of the refusal of the stockholders to advance said money and that E. Talbert would carry out said contract. The contract above mentioned was thereupon assigned by the leasing company to E. Talbert, as trustee. Thereupon, E. Talbert moved the drilling outfit and tools of the leasing company on said lands and drilled to a depth of a few hundred feet, when she notified Mr. Gum that she was out of funds and was unable to proceed further and asked that the Roxoline Company advance the necessary funds to complete the drilling of said well. The Roxoline Company thereupon paid all the outstanding bills, and with their superintendent in charge completed the drilling of said well, which was a producer. Neither Talbert nor the leasing company ever repaid to the Roxoline Company the amount so advanced.
¶5 This is the second appeal in this cause, the former appeal appearing under the style of Roxoline Petroleum Co. v. Craig, 150 Okla. 148, 300 P. 620. In that appeal this court determined that the trial court erred in rendering judgment on the pleadings.
¶6 It appears that the J. G. & O. Drilling & Leasing Company became financially involved and had various and sundry creditors, and that various creditors, among them being a creditor by the name of Wilson, filed a suit in the nature of a creditor's bill to subject the interest of the leasing company in said lands to the payment of the various debts of said leasing company. In that action the leasing company was not named as a party defendant, but E. Talbert, as trustee, was a party thereto. Lester B. Gum was also a party, but on application of the Roxoline Petroleum Company, showing that he held his interest for its benefit, said company was permitted to intervene in said action and the cause was dismissed as to Gum. Trial was had in the district court and resulted in a judgment in part as follows:
¶7 From said judgment an appeal was taken to this court by the Roxoline Petroleum Company, said cause appearing under the style of Roxoline Petroleum Co. v. Wilson et al., 123 Okla. 241, 253 P. 59.
¶8 The following appears in the opinion of the court:
¶9 We quote further from the opinion:
¶10 The amount of the interest of the leasing company was not an issue in said cause. The Roxoline Company contended that the contract had been abandoned and that said company had been compelled to take over the drilling of said well and that no rights vested either in the leasing company or E. Talbert. The trial court determined that E. Talbert had no interest in said lands, but that the leasing company had such interests as were provided by the terms of the above contract.
¶11 The plaintiff at the trial of this cause relied upon a quitclaim deed dated June 15, 1931, from E. Talbert to the Roxoline Petroleum Company. It will be observed that the deed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gragg v. Pruitt
...plea of estoppel by judgment is based is an issue in the latter case and was in issue and decided in the former." Craig v. Roxoline Petroleum Co., 170 Okla. 307, 39 P.2d 575. ¶23 We conclude, therefore, that there is no merit in that contention. ¶24 Defendants further contend that plaintiff......
-
Poarch v. Finkelstein
... ... in the latter case and was in issue and decided in the ... former. Craig v. Roxoline Petroleum Co., 170 Okl ... 307, 39 P.2d 575 ... 3 ... Where in ... ...
-
Wilson v. Lee Evans Drilling Co.
...plea of estoppel by judgment is based is in issue in the latter case and was in issue and decided in the former.' Craig v. Roxoline Petroleum Co., 170 Okl. 307, 39 P.2d 575; see also McKee v. Producers' & Refiners' Corporation, 170 Okl. 599, 41 P.2d 466; Reinhart & Donovan Co. v. Guaranty A......
-
Uphoff v. Meier
...277, 162 P. 471: Cressler v. Brown (1920) 79 Okla. 170, 192 11. 417; Sartin v. Hughen (1932) 154 Okla. 155, 7 P.2d Craig v. Roxoline Pet. Co. (1934) 170 Okla. 307, 39 P.2d 1 575; Black on Judgments, vol. 2, secs. 504 and 506; Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) vol. 2, sec. 627; 34 C. J. 742; 15......