Friedman Oil Corporation v. Brown, 4201.

Decision Date19 May 1932
Docket NumberNo. 4201.,4201.
Citation50 S.W.2d 471
PartiesFRIEDMAN OIL CORPORATION v. BROWN.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Smith County; Walter G. Russell, Judge.

Suit by F. H. Brown against the Friedman Oil Corporation. From an order appointing a receiver, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Troy Smith, of Tyler, for appellant.

Mayfield & Grisham, of Tyler, for appellee.

SELLERS, J.

F. H. Brown filed this suit in the district court of Smith county against Friedman Oil Corporation, a Texas corporation, to recover upon a written contract the sum of $6,000. It is alleged that, by the terms of the written contract, Brown, the plaintiff in the lower court, agreed to drill a well on a certain tract of land in Rusk county for the Friedman Oil Corporation, the defendant in the lower court, and he was to receive for his services, materials, etc., the sum of $5,000 in cash within 15 days after the completion of the well, together with two notes for the sum of $500 each, to be due in 60 and 90 days, respectively, from the date of completion of the well. It is further alleged that the plaintiff, Brown, furnished the labor and material in the drilling of the well, and that the well was completed according to the terms of the contract about October 22, 1931, and although demand had been made, the defendant corporation had failed and refused to pay the amount due under the contract or any part thereof. It is further alleged, quoting:

"Plaintiff says that immediately subsequent to October 1, 1931, the said defendant acting through the said Loues Friedman made various oil assignments and other character of contract liens and conveyances against and affecting said leasehold estate and in none of which assignments did the defendant specially call attention or refer to the written contract with this plaintiff but attempted to make assignments and conveyances to said various parties without giving actual notice of the contract with this plaintiff in order to place said property beyond the reach of this plaintiff and for the purpose of defrauding this plaintiff as a creditor. However, in this connection plaintiff says that he commenced actual work upon his labor contract on or before October 1, 1931, and that any assignments, transfers or instruments which in any way affect the title to said leasehold estate were in truth and in fact subject to the written contract with this plaintiff and subject to this plaintiff's right to fix its Laborer's-Materialman's-Contractor's Lien upon said property and that this plaintiff has timely executed and filed the required affidavit fixing his Laborer's-Materialman's-Contractor's Lien upon all of said leasehold estate and which lien is in full force and effect at the present time and which related back to October 1, 1931, and that any and all of said assignments, written contracts and other instruments filed for record since said date in any way affecting said land are subject and inferior to this plaintiff's Lien.

"Plaintiff says that the defendant is insolvent and cannot be made to respond in damages and that all the various lien holders and assignees holding assignments and contracts as made by the defendant subsequent to October 1st are claiming a superior title to this plaintiff and that all of the oil runs heretofore run or which may hereafter be run from said lease are so encumbered that no part of same can now be used for operating expenses to operate said property and that by reason of which facts said property is in great danger of being lost and irreparably...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Wilkenfeld v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 1945
    ...controversy they may have made thereto below, if any at all. Myerscough v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 1003; Friedman Oil Corp. v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 471; Cash v. Ervin, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 242; Curtis v. McKain, Tex. Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d In other words, appellants are n......
  • Anderson & Kerr Drilling Co. v. Bruhlmeyer
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1940
    ...Temple State Bank v. Mansfield, Tex.Civ. App., 215 S.W. 154; Massey v. Greenwood, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 1103; Friedman Oil Corporation v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 471; Zanes v. Mercantile Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 922, application for writ of error In our opinion, th......
  • Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company v. Kroeger
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 17, 1962
    ... ... Corrigan, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for appellees Imperial Production Corporation et al ...         Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and HUTCHESON and ... Tennessee Public Company v. Carpenter, supra; Friedman Oil Corp. v. Brown, 50 S.W.2d 471 Tex.Civ.App., 1932, n.w.h.); Yount et ... ...
  • Head v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 1, 1956
    ...to authorize the ex parte appointment of a receiver is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Friedman Oil Corp. v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 471; Baptist Missionary and Educational Convention of State of Texas v. Knox, Tex.Civ.App., 23 S.W.2d 781. But this discretion is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT