Dickerson v. Hopkins
| Decision Date | 17 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7641.) |
| Citation | 288 S.W. 1103 |
| Parties | DICKERSON et al. v. HOPKINS et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Robt. W. B. Terrell, Judge.
Suit by George Hopkins and others for the appointment of a receiver, in which an application was filed for an injunction restraining J. T. Dickerson and others from filing any suit involving the same subject-matter. From an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Templeton, Brooks, Napier & Brown, of San Antonio, for appellants.
Eskridge & Williams, of San Antonio, for appellees.
This appeal is from an order granting a temporary injunction restraining appellants and others similarly situated from instituting suits in Webb county or elsewhere upon causes of action affecting the subject-matter of this suit, which consists of the proceeds from the sale of certain oil properties in the Miranda field in Webb county. The fund in controversy amounts to nearly $1,000,000, and various interests therein are asserted by several different groups of persons. It is not deemed necessary to set out in detail the history of the transactions which gave rise to the several claims of interest. It is perhaps sufficient to say that the Crown Central Petroleum Corporation purchased certain oil properties from Wheatley & Wheatley, a partnership, and the Wheatley Oil Company and the Wheatley Petroleum Company, corporations, for a consideration of $825,000, of which $100,000 has been paid over to the Wheatley interests; that all the parties concede the validity of that sale to the Crown Central Company, which thereby obtained legal title and possession of the properties; that those in one group of claimants assert that they were defrauded in the early stages of the development of the properties and were entitled to share in the distribution of the proceeds of the sale to the Crown Central Company; that those in another group, consisting of shareholders in the Wheatley interests, conceding good faith throughout all the transaction, each asserts a certain interest in the proceeds of the sale; that the Wheatley interests claim a definite portion of the proceeds of the sale; and that as the custodian of the whole of those proceeds they must account to the rightful owners of different interests therein. It will be observed from this very general statement, then, that the proceeds of the sale of said properties constitutes the subject-matter of the litigation. This appears to be the controlling fact of this appeal.
On March 29th of this year George Hopkins and two others filed this suit in the district court of the Seventy-Third judicial district of Bexar county, alleging that they were shareholders in the Wheatley corporations and partnerships; that said corporations and partnerships had been dissolved and had entirely ceased to function, and that the defendants C. A. Wheatley and others named in the petition were the last appointed and acting trustees and representatives of the Wheatley concerns; that the plaintiffs as shareholders in said concerns were entitled to share in the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the oil properties to the Crown Central Company; that various other parties were asserting interests in said proceeds, which comprise the whole of the assets of said concerns; and that the defendants had failed and refused to account to plaintiffs or pay them their shares of said proceeds. The petitioners prayed for judgment for their said shares and for the appointment of a receiver to take over the assets of the Wheatley concerns and distributed the same to "those entitled to receive same in their due proportion."
Upon the filing of the suit the trial court ordered that notice be given the defendants to appear on April 15, 1926, and show cause why the receiver should not be appointed as prayed for. Three days later, on April 1, the plaintiffs filed in the cause an application for injunction restraining A. R. Arndt and 63 others, together with their attorneys, J. T. Dickerson and two others, from filing any suit in Webb county or elsewhere, "involving the subject-matter involved in this suit, and asking for the appointment of a receiver for said funds (being the proceeds from the sale hereinabove mentioned), or for any other extraordinary relief affecting said funds or the parties to this suit." It was alleged in the bill that the defendants complained of were threatening and intended to institute suit in the district court of Webb county to recover of the Wheatley interests and all others concerned the proceeds from said sale of said properties, and for the appointment of a master to audit the affairs of the Wheatley interests and ascertain the amount of said proceeds, and for the appointment of a receiver to take over said proceeds and distribute them to the rightful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christensen v. Integrity Ins. Co., A14-85-337-CV
...law does not require complete identity of parties to enjoin a suit in another court based upon the same subject matter. See Dickerson v. Hopkins, 288 S.W. 1103 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1926, no writ). In Dickerson, the court held that such an injunction would stand where it "did not purpo......
-
Maverick County Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. City of Laredo
...1 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, Sec. 3.39; Southwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Sanguinet, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 727; Dickerson v. Hopkins, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 1103, 1105. The true situation is that some of the Webb defendants, after the different suit was commenced in Hidalgo County, then......
-
City of Houston v. Kunze
...141 Tex. 208, 171 S.W.2d 842; Brazos River Conservation and Reclamation Dist v. Reese, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 519; Dickerson v. Hopkins, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 1103; Arts. 1957 and 4642, R.C.S. But we are far from convinced that a court with exclusive jurisdiction to condemn a tract of la......
-
Ebner v. Nall
...to the general demurrer. Cannon v. Hendrick, 5 Tex. 339; 32 C.J. p. 95, § 89; Dishong v. Finkbiner (C.C.) 46 F. 12; Dickerson v. Hopkins (Tex.Civ.App.) 288 S.W. 1103; Ellerd v. White (Tex.Civ.App.) 251 S.W. 274; Galveston, etc., Ry. Co. v. Dowe, 70 Tex. 5, 7 S.W. 368; 17 Tex.Jur. p. 14; Mil......