Gage v. McCurdy, 4446.

• Decision Date: 08 May 1933
• Docket Number: No. 4446.,4446.
• Citation: 60 S.W.2d 468
• Parties: GAGE et al. v. McCURDY et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

60 S.W.2d 468

GAGE et al. v. McCURDY et al.

No. 4446.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

May 8, 1933.

Rehearing Denied May 11, 1933.

Appeal from District Court, Gregg County; Will C. Hurst, Judge.

Suit by T. L. Bray and wife against W. L. McCurdy and others, in which the defendants filed cross-complaint against the plaintiffs and J. H. Gage and others. From an order overruling a motion to vacate the orders appointing a receiver and granting an injunction, J. H. Gage and others appeal.

Orders appointing receiver and granting an injunction dissolved.

Graves & Long, of Dallas, for appellants.

W. Edward Lee, of Longview, and H. G. Corbin, of Gladewater, for appellees.

SELLERS, Justice.

November 24, 1931, T. L. Bray and wife sued W. L. McCurdy and a great number of other defendants in the district court of Gregg county to cancel a certain lease which had been executed by Bray and wife to certain of the defendants, but which, as alleged by plaintiffs, was never delivered, but the defendants secured possession of the lease through fraudulent means. The lease covered about four acres of land in the town of Gladewater, Gregg county, Tex., and is very valuable oil land.

While this suit was pending, and on, to wit, April 8, 1932, T. J. Holcomb, who was not a party to the suit pending in the district court of Gregg county, brought a suit in the district court of Dallas county against J. H. Gage and a great number of other defendants, among whom were the plaintiffs and several of the defendants in the cause pending in the district court of Gregg county. This suit involved practically all the land involved in the case in Gregg county, and the suit had for its purpose, as alleged, the adjudication of all the mineral interests in the land and a distribution of the proceeds derived from the sale of the oil and gas produced from the premises. It was further alleged that, because of the conflicting claims to the mineral lease on the land, the plaintiff and the other owners of an interest in the minerals were unable to secure development of the property, and that the gas and oil from this property was being drained by wells on the adjoining tracts to the great damage of those rightfully entitled thereto, and would continue to be drained unless a receiver should be appointed to take charge and develop the land. The court appointed a receiver who was duly qualified and took possession of the property, and, with authority of the court, caused a well to be drilled on the land and was running the oil therefrom until stopped by an order issued by the district court of Gregg county as hereinafter noticed.

On December 17, 1932, W. L. McCurdy and several other defendants in the case pending in Gregg county district court filed their amended answer and cross-action making the plaintiffs in the Gregg county suit and all of the parties to the suit in the Dallas court, as well as the attorneys and the receiver appointed by the Dallas court, defendants in the cross-action. In this cross-action McCurdy and others alleged that on November 24, 1931, they were...