Glover v. McFaddin

• Decision Date: 23 April 1951
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1511.
• Citation: 99 F. Supp. 385
• Parties: GLOVER et al. v. McFADDIN et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

99 F. Supp. 385

GLOVER et al. v. McFADDIN et al.

Civ. A. No. 1511.

United States District Court E. D. Texas, Beaumont Division.

April 23, 1951.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Herman R. Parker, C. Howard Bozeman, Francke Sandford and Hugh C. Simpson, all of Knoxville, Tenn., E. Garland Brown, Corpus Christi, Tex., M. Herbert Oldham, Beaumont, Tex., for plaintiff.

George A. Weller, Beaumont, Tex., for Mrs. McFaddin, Mrs. Houck, Perry McFaddin, Caldwell McFaddin and Unity Oil Co.

Walace Hawkins, Dallas, Tex., Samuel C. Lipscomb, Beaumont, Tex., for Magnolia Petroleum Co.

Beeman Strong, Beaumont, Tex., for Stanolind Purchasing Co.

Walter C. Clemons and Manro Oberwetter, Houston, Tex., Will E. Orgain, Beaumont, Tex., for Gulf Oil Corporation.

Will E. Orgain, Beaumont, Tex., for Gulf Refining Co., Gulf States Utilities Co. and Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.

Joiner Cartwright, Charles F. Heidrick and Jack C. Hardy, all of Beaumont, Tex., for Sun Oil Co. and Sun Pipe Line Co.

Baker, Botts, Andrews & Parish, Houston, Tex., for Texas & New Orleans R. Co.

Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Francis and J. L. Lockett, all of Houston, Tex., for Reconstruction Finance Corp.

Fred B. Frazier, Chattanooga, Tenn., Mack Taylor, Ft. Worth, Tex., Joe H. Jones, Dallas, Tex., for Lynn Magill and Fred M. McSpadden.

York, Hardy & Clapp, Tyler, Tex., for Mrs. Louise H. Taylor and another.

D. B. Chapin, Corpus Christi, Tex., for Charles E. English and others.

CONNALLY, District Judge.

This suit involves the title to one of the oldest and most prolific of the oil fields of this State. Presently there are approximately 1,000 parties who appear as plaintiffs or intervenors, and about 20 defendants. Diversity of citizenship is the only grounds of federal jurisdiction alleged in the pleadings, and the matter is now before me on the motion of the defendants to dismiss the action in its entirety, and alternatively to dismiss the various interventions, for want of diversity. Due to the large number of parties and the various claims advanced by different groups of intervenors, the issues are complex, and a statement of the case requires a rather detailed recitation of the proceedings to date.

The action was initiated by the complaint of 3 individuals as a spurious class suit under Rule 23(a), Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., on behalf of themselves and some 2500 others, alleged to be the collateral kin of Pelham Humphries, the original patentee of the Pelham Humphries league in Jefferson County, Texas. The allegations were that the league of land was patented to Pelham Humphries by the Mexican State of Coahuila and Texas on February 14, 1835; that Pelham Humphries died September 5, 1835, intestate, single and without issue, survived by a brother, William Humphries, a sister, Betsy Jane Humphries Foust, and a half-brother, Elisha V. Humphries, Jr.; that during their entire lives William, Betsy Jane and Elisha resided in the State of Tennessee and were not aware of their inheritance on the death of their brother Pelham; that as a result of a fraudulent conspiracy by strangers to the title, after the death of Pelham Humphries the name "Pelham" was stricken and replaced by the name "William" in the original title papers, and likewise a forged and fraudulent power of attorney from William Humphries to one William English was prepared, under which the title ostensibly was conveyed to others; that title actually has reposed during all of the intervening years in the descendants of William Humphries, Betsy Jane Humphries Foust and Elisha V. Humphries, Jr. It is further alleged that the defendants, who are in possession of the property, have purchased from some of such collateral kin of the original patentee and hence that the plaintiffs and defendants are tenants in common. The plaintiffs pray for title and possession, an accounting of the oil extracted therefrom, appointment of a receiver to take possession of the land, the refineries and other improvements thereon, and for damages.

The original petition names some 20 individual and corporate defendants. While the states of their citizenship are not alleged with particularity, from subsequent pleadings and admissions it seems undisputed that the defendants are all citizens of the State of Texas except Sun Oil Company, a citizen of New Jersey, Stanolind Oil Purchasing Company, a citizen of Delaware, Gulf Oil Corporation, a citizen of Pennsylvania, Gulf Refining Company, a citizen of Delaware, and Mrs. L. A. Houck, a citizen of California. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation, created by Acts of Congress, likewise were named as defendants.

The defendants answered denying the allegations, attacking the plaintiffs' right to maintain the action and the jurisdiction of the Court. In ruling thereon Chief Judge Kennerly of the Southern District of Texas, as, in an opinion reported 81 F.Supp. 426, held that, it being alleged that the plaintiffs and defendants were tenants in common, under the substantive law of Texas each party plaintiff might recover only his own interest, if any, in the land and minerals, and that the three named plaintiffs might not recover on behalf of other tenants in common not parties to the suit; and hence, despite the fact that procedurally the action fell within the terms of Rule 23, it might not be maintained as a class suit.

Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an amended petition wherein they are joined by some 400 to 500 other individuals, citizens of Tennessee, South Carolina, California, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, alleging that these plaintiffs are the only heirs of Pelham Humphries other than those whose fractional interest the defendants own. No mention is made of the additional 2,000 referred to in the original complaint. The other allegations and prayer conform substantially to those of the original complaint. There is no allegation of the fractional interest claimed by each plaintiff, or that the value of the amount claimed by each is in excess of $3,000.

Since institution of the suit some 22 groups have sought leave to intervene. They assert varying and conflicting claims. At the time of each intervention, the Clerk was directed to file the pleading and leave to intervene was granted "subject to all legal objection", by which was meant that counsel might appear and participate in the pre-trial hearings, but if objection were made to the intervention, the propriety of granting leave would be inquired into. The time has come to make such inquiry. Many of the intervenors are citizens of the same states as the plaintiffs, other intervenors of the same states as the defendants. The defendants move to dismiss by reason of want of diversity between the plaintiffs and themselves; they contend that the claims of the various intervenors must be determined, and then such parties realigned according to their interest; that by reason of their community of interest, cooperation, collusion and consent, many intervenors must be placed in the camp of the plaintiffs, which further destroys diversity, relying on such cases as Forest Oil Co. v. Crawford, 3 Cir., 101 F. 849; Kendrick v. Kendrick, 5 Cir., 16 F.2d 744; Gaddis v. Junker, D.C., 27 F.2d 156; and Johnson v. Riverland Levee Dist., 8 Cir., 117 F.2d 711, 134 A.L.R. 326.

At the outset it is perfectly apparent that the action cannot be maintained at all in its present state. Among the several hundred plaintiffs who appear by first amended petition I find many citizens of California and Pennsylvania. The defendant Mrs. L. A. Houck is a citizen of California, and the defendant Gulf Oil Corporation is a citizen of Pennsylvania. The complete diversity required between the original parties is wanting. Moore's Commentaries on the U. S. Judicial Code, p. 156. Hence the action will be dismissed 30 days from the date of filing of this memorandum, unless counsel by further amendment, alleges an action of which this Court has jurisdiction.

In the event plaintiffs elect to amend, the disposition to be made of the various interventions is not so easy. This necessitates an inquiry into the claims asserted by the various groups, so that it may be determined whether their intervention is of right, or permissive; where their interests lie; and whether, and if so how, they should be realigned for jurisdictional purposes. For brevity, the several interventions will be considered in groups.

In Group I, I place the interventions of George Franklin Humphries, et al., Willie Melvin McFaddin, et al., Mittie Humphries Hooper, et al., William Thomas Anderson, James Claude Cherry, et al., Jessie Malinda Gray Cooper, et al., Lillie Keesling, et al., R. R. Foust, et al., Louise Humphries Taylor, et al., Roxie Kuswara, et al. and Berletta H. Bernhard, et al. The pleadings filed on behalf of each of these groups make the same allegations as do the plaintiffs, and in each instance contend that they constitute additional collateral kin of Pelham Humphries, as the original patentee, are additional tenants in common, and are entitled to recover of the defendants under the same theory and the same chain of title as the plaintiffs. Usually the pleadings adopt all of the allegations made by the plaintiffs' first amended petition save that of heirship. The plaintiffs and all of these intervenors contest with the defendants on the main issue in the case, namely that of the Pelham Humphries title. They contest with each other only in so far as a determination of heirship is concerned.

In Group II, I place the interventions of J. Lawrence McBride, et al., Clyde W. McDaniel, et al., and Lynn B. Magill, et al. Each of these interventions is based on allegations completely inconsistent with those of the plaintiffs, other groups of intervenors, or with each other, and each of them describes the original patentee under whom they claim in a manner to indicate that, despite the name, he was in fact a different individual from the original...