Gulf Oil Corporation v. Eisenhour

• Decision Date: 17 January 1958
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 7720.
• Citation: 158 F. Supp. 663
• Parties: GULF OIL CORPORATION, Life of America Building, Plaintiff, v. Carl F. EISENHOUR, an Executor of the Estate of Arthur S. Hickok, Deceased, in the State of Ohio, an Executor of the Estate of Arthur S. Hickok, Deceased, in the State of Texas, and a Trustee under the Last Will and Testament of Arthur S. Hickok, Deceased, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

158 F. Supp. 663

GULF OIL CORPORATION, Life of America Building, Plaintiff, v. Carl F. EISENHOUR, an Executor of the Estate of Arthur S. Hickok, Deceased, in the State of Ohio, an Executor of the Estate of Arthur S. Hickok, Deceased, in the State of Texas, and a Trustee under the Last Will and Testament of Arthur S. Hickok, Deceased, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 7720.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, W. D.

January 17, 1958.

R. N. Torbet, Zachman, Boxell, Bebout & Torbet, Toledo, Ohio, David W. Stephens, Jesse P. Luton, Jr., Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff.

Charles J. Cole, Henry W. Seney, Eastman, Stichter & Smith, James J. Robison, Robert B. Gosline, Toledo, Ohio, Hubert E. Hartman, Detroit, Mich., James A. Rees, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.

KLOEB, District Judge.

Under date of February 13, 1957, Plaintiff filed its complaint for interpleader, in which it named some twentyone churches, schools, hospitals and other institutions of a charitable or religious nature and six attorneys at law, who represent these institutions, as parties Defendant. For our purposes, these Defendants, their interests being in common, shall hereinafter be referred to as "Charities". The complaint also named the executors and trustees of the estate of Arthur S. Hickok, deceased, the widow and children of the deceased and Hickok and Reynolds, Inc., of Toledo, Ohio, as parties Defendant. Their interests appearing to be in common in this litigation, they are hereinafter referred to as "Fiduciaries".

Plaintiff brings its action under the provisions of Section 1335 of Title 28 of the United States Code Annotated and claims jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship.

The complaint alleges that Arthur S. Hickok died in Lucas County, Ohio on June 30, 1945, and that his Last Will and Testament was duly admitted to probate in the Probate Court of Lucas County, Ohio on or about July 9, 1945; that said Will was also admitted to probate by the County Court of Eastland County, Texas, and ancillary letters testamentary were issued to the same executors that qualified in Ohio; that, under the Last Will and Testament of the testator, certain property was devised and bequeathed to Walter G. Kirkbride, Carl F. Eisenhour and Clarence H. Hickok as trustees for a period of twenty years after the death of the decedent, and that the remainder, after the expiration of the twenty-year period, was to be divided into five funds which were to be distributed among the Defendant "Charities"; that "Fiduciaries" on the one hand and "Charities" on the other hand are adverse claimants to the proceeds attributable to a certain royalty interest in lands covered by an oil and gas lease, in which royalty interest the deceased at the time of his death held an undivided interest by virtue of being a member of a partnership organized, doing business and registered in and under the laws of the State of Texas under the name of Hickok and Reynolds; that Plaintiff is the owner and holder of an oil and gas lease executed by Mrs. C. A. Goldsmith and Charley M. Goldsmith and wife (hereinafter referred to as the "Goldsmith Property"), and that it is engaged in the production of oil and gas from the lands covered by said lease; that on or about September 7, 1956, Plaintiff received by mail a copy of a notice of Lis Pendens given by Defendant "Charities" and that said notice of Lis Pendens is filed in the records of the County Clerk, Ector County, Texas; that by reason of said notice Plaintiff, on September 10, 1956, suspended the payments covering the royalty interest in the "Goldsmith Property", effective August 1, 1956; that, on January 24, 1957, Plaintiff was served with a summons and petition in cause No. 182601 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio, in which Carl F. Eisenhour, Clarence H. Hickok and The Toledo Trust Company, sole surviving executors of the estate of Arthur S. Hickok, deceased, are Plaintiffs and Plaintiff herein is Defendant, and in this action the Plaintiffs therein allege that they are entitled to the royalty from the "Goldsmith Property"; that, on January 24, 1957, Plaintiff was served with a summons in a similar action filed in the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, Ohio, in which Carl F. Eisenhour and Clarence H. Hickok, sole surviving trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Arthur S. Hickok, are Plaintiffs and Plaintiff herein is Defendant, and that this suit also involves a claim of ownership to the royalty from the "Goldsmith Property"; that, on January 24, 1957, Plaintiff was served with a summons in a suit in Lucas County, Ohio, in which Daisy S. Hickok is Plaintiff and Plaintiff herein is Defendant, in which suit the "Goldsmith Property" is again at issue; that, Plaintiff being in doubt as to which of said Defendants are entitled to payment of the money which has accrued to this royalty interest since August 1, 1956, and which may hereafter accrue to said royalty interest, and Plaintiff has been and may be subjected to vexatious and multitudinous suits and be further subjected to multiple payments in the event all of the Defendants should prevail upon their claims against Plaintiff, Plaintiff prays that each of the Defendants be restrained from instituting any action or actions against Plaintiff for the recovery of the proceeds from the royalty interest in the "Goldsmith Property"; that the accruals from the Goldsmith royalties have been paid into the Registry of this Court and will continue to be so paid pending the outcome of this suit and, further, Plaintiff demands that the Defendants herein be required to interplead and settle between themselves their rights to the proceeds attributable to the Goldsmith royalty interest.

A motion for preliminary injunction and an order requiring Defendants to interplead accompanied Plaintiff's complaint, together with a brief in support of the motion, and an order restraining Defendants and requiring Defendants to interplead, which order was on the same day, February 13, approved by the Court and filed.

In due course, answers were filed by the Defendants and, under date of March 28, 1957, the Court, on motion of the "Fiduciary" Defendants, approved an order restraining "Charities" from instituting any action against the moving Defendants or from prosecuting any action or actions against the moving Defendants affecting the Goldsmith royalty interest in Ector County, Texas.

On April 24, 1957, "Charities" moved to stay the proceedings and to dissolve the restraining order issued against them and, in this motion, they move the Court as follows:

"1. For an order staying further proceedings in this cause pending decisions by the Texas Courts in the actions or proceedings now pending in the State of Texas for the reasons:

"(a) That an action is now, and for many years has been, pending in the District Court of Eastland County, Texas, a court of general jurisdiction, which court has sole and exclusive jurisdiction in the premises and had acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, and of all issues presented by the pleadings herein prior to the filing of this suit.

"(b) That the administration of the Texas estate of Arthur S. Hickok, deceased, is now, and for many years has been, pending in the County Court of Eastland County, Texas, a court of probate, which court has sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the administration of said estate in Texas.

"(c) That this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims made in the answers and the prayers for relief demanded in the answers of defendants Carl F. Eisenhour, et al.

"2. For an order dissolving the restraining order entered March 28, 1957, on the motion of Defendants Carl F. Eisenhour, et al., restraining Defendant "Charities" and their attorneys, LeRoy E. Eastman, et al., from prosecuting the suits or proceedings now pending in the Courts of the State of Texas; said restraining order ought to be dissolved so that the exclusive jurisdiction of said Texas Courts will not be further interfered with and said Texas suits may proceed to an orderly determination."

In due course, briefs were filed in support of and in opposition to the "Charities'" motion to stay the proceedings and to dissolve the restraining order in effect against them, and these briefs were accompanied by affidavits. Under date of November 22, 1957, "Fiduciaries" filed their several motions for summary judgment and accompanied these motions with an affidavit and briefs in support thereof, and Defendant "Charities" filed a memorandum in opposition to these motions.

On December 2, 1957, Defendant "Charities" filed a motion to stay proceedings on the motions for summary judgment and a brief in support thereof. Defendant "Fiduciaries" filed a memorandum in opposition thereto. We come now to consideration of "Charities'" motion to stay proceedings and dissolve the restraining order of March 28, 1957.

It would seem to be unnecessary to recite in detail all of the facts and the events that transpired from the date the testator executed his Will on February 10, 1945 down to the present day. The assets of the estate located in the State of Texas at the date of the death of testator, June 30, 1945, are in question, and particularly do "Fiduciaries" in this action seek a determination by this Court that they are the owners of the "Goldsmith Property". In the case of Toledo Society for Crippled Children v. Hickok, 152 Tex. 578, 261 S.W. 692, 43 A.L.R.2d 553, dated October 7, 1953, the Supreme Court of Texas, in its opinion by Mr. Justice Garwood, recites a very comprehensive statement of facts and of the history of the estate as it pertained particularly to the assets of the estate located in the State of Texas. In addition thereto, we shall recite only pertinent facts that may aid in an understanding of the situation presented to this Court at this time.

Immediately after the death of testator, the Will was probated...