Elk Fork Oil & Gas Co. v. Jennings

• Decision Date: 22 December 1898
• Citation: 90 F. 767
• Court: Circuit Court of Virginia
• Parties: ELK FORK OIL & GAS CO. v. JENNINGS et al. FOSTER v. ELK FORK OIL & GAS CO.

90 F. 767

ELK FORK OIL & GAS CO. v. JENNINGS et al.

FOSTER v. ELK FORK OIL & GAS CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. West Virginia.

December 22, 1898

W. P Hubbard, for Elk Fork Oil & Gas Co. and L. A. Brenneman receiver.

Alfred Caldwell, for E. H. Jennings and others.

B. M Ambler and A. L. Weil, for George E. Foster.

Henry M. Russell, for C. W. Brockunier, receiver.

V. B Archer, for W. A. McCosh, receiver.

GOFF Circuit Judge.

This court has heretofore disposed of the main questions involved in these cases. 84 F. 839. They are now submitted upon the applications of the receivers for compensation for the services rendered by them; upon the application of George E. Foster for the refunding to him of certain advances made by him to the receivers under orders of the court; and upon exceptions of the Elk Fork Oil & Gas Company and of Receiver Brockunier to the master's report:

Without making special reference to the testimony or to the arguments of counsel based thereon, I conclude that the receivers are entitled to compensation, and that, under the circumstances applicable to the individual services of each receiver,-- keeping in view the time they were respectively employed in the discharge of their duties, as well as the responsibilities they assumed,-- an allowance of $200 per month to McCosh, and of $300 per month to Brockunier, during the time they respectively served as receivers, will be fair to them and just to the parties in interest.

Under certain orders of the court, made of the 13th of April, 1897, and on the 20th of May of that year, George E. Foster, defendant in one suit and complainant in the other, and also the Elk Fork Oil & Gas Company, complainant in the original suit and defendant in the cross bill, made advances of money and materials to Receiver Brockunier, to be used by him in the development of the property in controversy; the former to the amount of $28,119.56, and the latter in the sum of $17,000. Since these advancements were so made, this court has decided the questions relating to the title to the leases in controversy between the different parties to this litigation, and as the result thereof the said Elk Fork Oil & Gas Company has been given the possession of the land described in the same. That company, having the title and the possession of the property, and being entitled to the production from it, and also the funds in the hands of the court coming therefrom, makes no application to have refunded to it the advancements made by it; but Foster, who is quite differently situated, having lost his title to and the possession of said lands for oil purposes, as also any interest in the fund in court, requests that he be reimbursed the full amount of his advancements. The Elk Fork Oil & Gas Company objects to such reimbursement of Foster, and insists that the orders appointing the receivers, as well as those authorizing the advancement of money and materials, were irregular, and are invalid because of the fact that notice was not given to it prior to the entry of said orders that a receiver would be asked for and also authority to borrow money on the credit of the property be requested of the court.

On the 13th of April, 1897, the Elk Fork Oil & Gas Company moved the court for an injunction against Foster, and for the dissolution of an injunction which Foster had obtained from this court on the 6th of April, 1897, against it, which said motions were argued by the counsel of all the parties in interest, and taken under advisement. The court (Judge JACKSON), without passing on these motions, appointed Charles W. Brockunier receiver of the oil and gas rights in the 50 acres of the B. F. Hawkins lease, and the court so acted without any of the parties having asked for the appointment of a receiver. As the case then stood, the Elk Fork Oil & Gas Company had an injunction (the same having been granted by the circuit court of Tyler county, W. Va., before the case was removed to this court) by which Jennings, Guffey, and others were restrained from taking possession of any part of the land in controversy, and at the same time Foster had a restraining order which prevented said company from proceeding with the development of the leases, while the operations of adjoining owners were injuring the interests of the true owners of the leases in dispute. Thus, all of the...