Hardy v. Heeter
| Citation | 120 Ind.App. 711,96 N.E.2d 682 |
| Decision Date | 15 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 18102,18102 |
| Parties | HARDY v. HEETER. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Roscoe D. Wheat and James W. Grimes, Portland, for appellant.
Keith Fraser, Robert L. Smith and John A. Resler, all of Portland, and John M. Heeter, Indianapolis, for appellee.
A proper understanding of the questions involved in this appeal requires a brief account of the background in which the present litigation has its origin. On April 24, 1937, Frederick S. Hardy, the appellant herein, was the owner, through a commissioner's deed, of 30 acres of land in Jay County, Indiana. In 1920, the then owner of said land leased it to one W. E. Rice for gas and oil exploration and development and the following year three producing wells were drilled thereon. In 1926, through a series of mesne assignments, said gas and oil lease, together with the machinery, casings, tubing, lead pipes, storage tanks and other equipment constituting said oil wells, became the property of William J. Heeter. Heeter continued in the undisputed possession of said lease until December 21, 1944, when the appellant, acting in accordance with the provisions of Burns' Stat. § 3-1633, filed an affidavit with the recorder of Jay County to the effect that said lease had not been operated nor any oil or gas produced thereunder for more than one year. Said recorder, as empowered to do by the provisions of the statute above cited, thereupon cancelled said lease of record but later reinstated the same upon receipt of Heeter's affidavit that the appellant had procured the cancellation thereof through fraud and false representations. Shortly thereafter the appellant brought suit in the Jay Circuit Court against Heeter to quiet title to said lands against the Heeter lease and Heeter filed a cross-complaint whereby he sought to establish the validity of said lease against all claims of the appellant. The court found for the appellant on his complaint and further found that the wells on said land had not been pumped for more than two years and that Heeter had not asserted any interest in said lease during such time. Judgment was entered for the appellant on his complaint and against Heeter on his cross-complaint. Heeter appealed to this court and we reversed the judgment for Hardy on his complaint but affirmed it as to the cross-complaint on the grounds that the evidence clearly indicated that Heeter had abandoned his lease and that the same was therefore null and void. Heeter v. Hardy, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 256, 265, 76 N.E.2d 590. This decision was filed January 9, 1948 and on February 26, 1948, Heeter died.
The administrator of his estate inventoried and appraised the equipment constituting the three oil wells on the appellant's land as assets of said estate and on June 19, 1948, they sold the same, by order of court, to Elizabeth Heeter, the widow of William J. Heeter and the appellee herein. She thereupon, on July 5, 1948, made demand on the appellant for the surrender of such equipment described as follows: 'One 25 barrel steel tank; 3040 feet 2 inch tubing; 3040 feet sucker rods; three stuffing boxes; three working barrels; 660 feet 6 1/4 inch casing; 310 feet 8 inch drive pipe; one 20 horse-power Superior Gas Engine; 70 feet 10 inch belt; 2400 feet 2 inch gas line; 1400 feet 2 inch lead line; 2450 feet pull rods; three iron pump jacks; together with fittings, connections, and such other equipment as is used for the operation of an oil and gas well.' Such demand was refused and the present litigation followed. It was commenced in the Jay Circuit Court by the appellee through a complaint against the appellant in two paragraphs, the first of which is for the replevin of the property above described, and the second for damages resulting from the alleged wrongful conversion thereof. In addition to answers under Rule 1-3 the appellant filed a special answer in which he alleges that the appellee's right, title and interest in the property described was adjudicated against her in the case of Heeter v. Hardy, supra, and she is now estopped from again asserting any claim thereto. The court found for the appellee on the conversion paragraph of her complaint, assessed her damages in the sum of $650 and entered judgment accordingly.
The first question for our determination is whether or not the decision of this court in Heeter v. Hardy, supra, adjudicates the issues in this case adversely to the appellee. Although she was not a party to that suit she is in privity with the appellant therein and is bound by such decision, whatever its effect may be. The appellant contends that our holding in that case to the effect that Heeter had abandoned his lease and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yoder Feed Service v. Allied Pullets, Inc.
...time of the conversion as determined by a fair market. Daly v. Nau (1975), Ind.App.,339 N.E.2d 71 (transfer denied); Hardy v. Heeter (1951), 120 Ind.App. 711, 96 N.E.2d 682. Although such a rule may vary according to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, these distinctions are u......
-
Hendrickson & Sons Motor Co. v. Osha
...with the owner's (title), . . .' Monarch Buick Co., Inc. v. Kennedy (1965), 138 Ind.App. 1, 209 N.E.2d 922; Hardy v. Heeter (1951), 120 Ind.App. 711, 96 N.E.2d 682. Hendrickson's assertion that Osha failed to present evidence of a demand for possession of the automobile is without merit. Os......
-
Youngs v. Old Ben Coal Co.
...to remove the equipment before or after the lease expires, so long as the removal is done within a "reasonable time." Hardy v. Heeter, 96 N.E.2d 682, 684 (Ind. App. 1951); Smith v. Mesel, 84 N.E.2d 477 (Ind. App. 1949); Michaels v. Pontius, 137 N.E. 579 (Ind. App. 1922); 4 Eugene Kuntz, A T......
-
Foley v. Colby, 1269A246
...with the owner's." See also: Sikora v. Barney et al., 138 Ind.App. 686, 207 N.E.2d 846 (1966), (transfer denied); Hardy v. Heeter, 120 Ind.App. 711, 96 N.E.2d 682 (1951); Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Thatcher, 104 Ind.App. 14, 4 N.E.2d 574 (1937), (transfer Beaver Products Co. v. Voorh......