Hudson v. Newell, 12417.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12417.,12417. |
| Citation | 174 F.2d 546 |
| Parties | HUDSON et al. v. NEWELL et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Reynolds S. Cheney, Jackson, Miss., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, SIBLEY, HOLMES, McCORD and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
This cause has been reheard before the court in bank. The appellants have contended for a withdrawal of Paragraph 6 of the opinion heretofore filed touching unitized lands. The appellees have asked a judgment of affirmance instead of reversal.
For the reasons stated in the former opinion the judgment of reversal is adhered to.
As to Paragraph 6, appellants have filed a formal disclaimer of any intention to interfere with the unitizations formed before the filing of these suits to which they were not parties; and they offer so to amend their pleadings in this court or in the district court as to adopt and ratify such unitizations and to seek only to substitute themselves for their adversaries in title in these suits in such unitizations, without affecting in any manner the rights of the other parties thereto. If this is done such other parties will not be affected by such relief and are not indispensable parties to the suits. Paragraph 6 of the opinion is therefore withdrawn, and the disclaimer and agreement to ratify and adopt the unitizations above referred to will, as is therein proposed, be made a part of the mandate to the district court which shall cause the appellants to so amend their pleadings and prayers with reference to the unitized lands as to seek a decree, if they establish their title, which shall substitute themselves for their adversaries in title without affecting the rights of the other parties to the unitization agreements who are not before the court. This done, the suits may proceed without the presence of these absent parties.
The judgment of reversal is adhered to, and the cause remanded for further proceedings as herein directed, and not otherwise inconsistent with the opinion heretofore rendered.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Company v. Johnson
...should not have been dismissed for want of indispensable parties,4 * * *. "4. Hudson v. Newell, 5 Cir., 172 F.2d 848, at page 850, Id., 5 Cir., 174 F.2d 546; Mackintosh v. Marks, 5 Cir., 225 F.2d 211. Cf. Christian v. Texas Gas Co., D.C., 14 F.R.D. 80, Without deciding whether this prior ad......
-
Anderson v. Moorer
...225 F.2d 211, cert. denied 350 U.S. 934, 76 S.Ct. 306, 100 L.Ed. 816; Hudson v. Newell, 5 Cir. 1949, 172 F.2d 848, aff'd en banc 1949, 174 F.2d 546. Cf. Standard Oil Co. of Texas v. Marshall, 5 Cir. 1959, 265 F.2d 46, cert. denied 361 U.S. 915, 80 S.Ct. 259, 4 L.Ed.2d 185. Compare Hilton v.......
-
Allen v. Baker, GC685.
...Refining Company, 327 F.2d 217 (5 Cir. 1964); Calcote v. Texas Pacific Coal and Oil Company, 157 F.2d 216 (5 Cir. 1946); Hudson v. Newell, 174 F.2d 546 (5 Cir. 1949). Indispensable parties have also been defined as "persons who not only have an interest in the controversy but an interest of......
-
Estes v. SHELL OIL COMPANY
...teachings, settled by the course of decision here culminating in our en banc decision in Hudson v. Newell, 5 Cir., 172 F. 2d 848; Id., 5 Cir., 174 F.2d 546." 8 Vincent Oil Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., 5 Cir., 1912, 195 F. 434; Associated Oil Co. v. Miller, 5 Cir., 1920, 269 F. 16; Keegan v. Hu......
-
CHAPTER 11 NON-RECORD TITLE CONSIDERATIONS
...492, 28 O&GR 589 (1968), rev'g 85 Ill. App. 2d 467, 229 N.E.2d 299, 27 O&GR 3 (1967); Hudson v. Newell, 172 F.2d 848 (5th Cir.) reh'g 174 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1949) (applying Mississippi law); and Veal v. Thomason, 138 Tex. 341, 159 S.W.2d 472 (1942). [80] See 6 Williams and Meyers, Oil & Gas......
-
CHAPTER 17 TITLE CURVE BALLS THROWN BY UNITS
...Oil & Gas Rep. 589 (1968); Hudson v. Newell, 172 F.2d 848, 852 (5th Cir. 1949) (interpreting Mississippi law), modified on other grounds, 174 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1949); Merrill Eng'g Co. v. Capital Nat'l Bank, 192 Miss. 378, 394-95, 5 So.2d 666 (1942). [50] Conine, supra note 47, at 10-8. [5......
-
CHAPTER 17 TITLE EXAMINATIONS ON UNITIZED LAND
...Oil Co., 229 N.E.2d 299 (Ill. App. 1967), rev'd, 237 N.E.2d 492 (Ill. 1968); Hudson v. Newell, 172 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1949), reh'g 174 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1949.) For other cases discussing the cross-assignment theory see Myers, The Law of Pooling and Unitization, § 13.02 (1984); Hoffman, Vol......