Dodson v. Thomas
| Citation | 50 S.W.2d 861 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 12756.,12756. |
| Parties | DODSON v. THOMAS. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; H. S. Lattimore, Judge.
Suit by J. M. Thomas against Harry W. Elliott and others, wherein William A. McAtee and another filed a plea of intervention, and wherein, after the appointment of receivers, J. L. Dodson filed an application for an order vacating the receivership as to certain properties. From an order overruling his application, last named defendant appeals.
Affirmed, with directions.
William H. Duls and C. M. Means, both of Dallas, and Boykin & Ray, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Arthur Lee Moore and Ernest May, both of Fort Worth, for appellee.
J. M. Thomas instituted this suit in the Ninety-Sixth district court of Tarrant county against Harry W. Elliott and numerous other parties, in which plaintiff sought to recover a judgment against the defendant Elliott in the sum of $1,200 claimed by the plaintiff as past-due salaries accruing for services performed as general superintendent of Elliott's leases. Plaintiff alleged that Elliott was the owner of oil leases on some 14 separate tracts of land situated in Gregg county, and owed other defendants divers and sundry amounts who asserted liens on the leases for the payment of the respective amounts due them, and that Elliott was also indebted to divers and sundry other persons in an aggregate sum of $40,000 unsecured by any liens.
It was further alleged that the leases so held by Elliott were capable of development by drilling operations which would produce large profits, but that he was unable to make such development for lack of means.
The petition also embodied a prayer for the appointment of a receiver for the purpose of operating the leases and preserving the oil therefrom from the danger of being exhausted from offset wells drilled on land adjoining thereto.
According to other allegations in his petition, plaintiff's claim of indebtedness was not secured by any character of lien upon the leases nor did he claim any interest in the title thereto.
On December 21, 1931, plaintiff's first amended original petition was filed, setting up substantially the same cause of action as in the original petition, and also praying for the appointment of a receiver; and on the same day the court appointed A. P. Barrett and W. A. Todd receivers for all of the oil leases described in plaintiff's pleadings. The receivers so appointed duly qualified by giving the bond as required of them as such by order of the court and also by taking the statutory oath. On January 26, 1932, by leave of the court first had, William A. McAtee and Olive C. De Yapp filed a plea of intervention in the suit in which each claimed a specific interest in some of the leases owned by the defendant Elliott.
On January 14, 1932, some twelve days prior to the intervention, J. L. Dodson filed in the Ninety-Sixth district court an application in the same case for an order vacating the receivership as to five acres of the land included in the properties that had been placed in the hands of the receivers. It was alleged in the application that Dodson was the owner and holder of a one-sixteenth overriding royalty interest in the lease on that five acres of land, on which a well had been drilled capable of producing large quantities of oil, and that the petitioner objected to the lease being impressed with the general expense of the entire receivership. There was a further allegation that the applicant had filed a suit in the Seventeenth district court for the appointment of a receiver of the five acres above mentioned, but there was no allegation that that application had been acted on by the Seventeenth district court. It was alleged that the order appointing the receivers by the Ninety-Sixth district court was void because the plaintiff in that suit, upon whose petition the order was made, was a simple contract creditor asserting no lien or any interest in any of the properties owned by the defendant Elliott, and no grounds were alleged authorizing the appointment of the receivers to operate the business of an individual.
It was further alleged that the appointment of a receiver was the result of a collusive prearrangement between the plaintiff and defendant for the purpose of preventing the collection of just debts against Elliott.
The application so presented by Dodson was overruled on February 1, 1932, five days after the plea of intervention had been filed, and from that order this appeal has been prosecuted by Dodson.
It is true, as contended by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial