K.C. Oil Co. v. Harvest Oil & Gas Co.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | 10059. |
| Citation | 194 P. 228,80 Okla. 61,1920 OK 380 |
| Parties | K. C. OIL CO. v. HARVEST OIL & GAS CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In an action on account to recover the purchase price of a quantity of crude oil, to foreclose a materialman's lien, and for the appointment of a receiver, commenced by a corporation against R., an individual, and the H. O. & G. Company and the R. & C. Company, two corporations, the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that R., the individual defendant who was an officer and stockholder in both of his codefendant corporations, purchased the crude oil and was in possession of the property upon which the lien was claimed and for which the receiver was granted, thereupon the individual defendant testified without contradiction that he purchased the oil as an officer of one of the defendant companies and for its use and that the same was charged to that company upon the books of the plaintiff; that the property upon which the lien was sought to be foreclosed and for which the receivership was granted was the property of the H. O. & G. Company and that the same was in the possession of the R. & C. Company as lessee. Held, that in the absence of fraud the evidence introduced by the plaintiff in no way tended to contradict the positive testimony of R., and that the trial court did not err in so instructing the jury.
Persons who wrongfully procure the appointment of a receiver become after the appointment is judicially declared void, trespassers ab initio and liable for the damages caused by their wrongful acts. It is not necessary, in order to recover damages for wrongfully procuring the appointment of a receiver, to show that the appointment was procured maliciously and without probable cause. In an action for damages for wrongfully securing the appointment of a receiver, the general rules as to burden of proof and admissibility of evidence in civil actions apply. Plaintiff is entitled to all damages which he may sustain by reason of such appointment, and in determining the measure of damages it is proper to consider the injury to plaintiff's possession during the period of the receivership.
Where a person takes the property of another under circumstances amounting to a conversion, the wrongdoer cannot, with good grace, ask the person injured to do anything more in the way of mitigating damages than to take back his property when it is tendered to him. It is true that there can be no recovery for losses which might have been prevented by reasonable efforts on the part of the person injured, but it seems to us that the defendant has done everything that could be reasonably expected of him in the way of mitigating damages.
Record examined and held: (1) that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury as to the measure of damages; (2) that the amount of recovery, while liberal, was fully sustained by the evidence; (3) that the remaining errors complained of are the class covered by section 6005, Rev. Laws 1910, and as it does not appear that they probably resulted in a miscarriage of justice, it follows that the judgment below must be affirmed.
Appeal from District Court, Pontotoc County; J. W. Bolen, Judge.
Action by the K. C. Oil Company against the Harvest Oil & Gas Company and others. Judgment in favor of the defendant named, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Robt. Wimbish and W. C. Duncan, both of Ada, for plaintiff in error.
Pierce & McClelland, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
This was an action upon an account and to foreclose a materialman's lien, commenced by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, against the defendant in error and others, as defendants.
The petition of the plaintiff alleged, in substance, that the R. & C. Oil Company, the Harvest Oil & Gas Company and C. G. Reeves were indebted to it in the sum of $85.25 for 155 barrels of crude oil which the plaintiff sold to the defendants and for which the defendants refused to pay; that said oil was furnished to said defendants for the purpose of operating the engine and machinery in drilling an oil well on an oil and gas lease belonging to the defendants; that the defendants had on said lease certain tools, oil well supplies, etc., which were specifically described in the petition, upon which the plaintiff was entitled to a lien for the payment of the amount sued for. Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against the R. & C. Oil Company, Harvest Oil & Gas Company, and C. G. Reeves in the sum of $85.25, and for a decree adjudging the oil well supplies and other materials hereinbefore mentioned to be subject to a lien in favor of plaintiff to the extent of the judgment rendered and for the foreclosure of said lien against said oil well supplies, materials, etc., and the oil and gas lease belonging to the defendants. The plaintiff further prayed for an order restraining the defendants from collecting the insurance on said oil well supplies and that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the oil well supplies, materials, etc., and that said defendants be restrained and enjoined from selling, disposing, or removing or otherwise incumbering said oil well supplies, materials, etc.
Upon this petition and other showings made by the plaintiff, the judge of the district court made an order allowing a temporary injunction and appointing a receiver, and thereafter the receiver thus appointed qualified and proceeded to take charge of the property hereinbefore mentioned.
Thereafter the defendant the Harvest Oil & Gas Company filed its amended answer, wherein, in addition to a general denial, it alleged, in substance, that it was the owner of the oil well supplies, material, etc., described in plaintiff's petition, and that this answering defendant rented the same to the defendant the R. & C. Oil Company for the purpose of drilling an oil and gas well upon a lease owned by the latter company. In this answer the defendant also specifically denied that it ever bought anything from the plaintiff, that it was in any way indebted to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff was entitled to a lien on any of the property described in said petition.
By way of cross-petition this answering defendant alleged, in substance, that it was the owner of all the oil well supplies, machinery, etc., mentioned in plaintiff's petition and over which a receiver was appointed; that said oil well supplies, materials, etc., were rented by it to the defendant R. & C. Oil Company to drill a well in the Allen field, and that this defendant never bought anything from the plaintiff and is not indebted to plaintiff in any way, and that said tools and machinery were in no way liable to any lien which plaintiff might have against any other defendant herein; that the officers of plaintiff corporation or those in charge of its business are also officers of and interested in a refining company with a plant at Allen, Okl.; that the officers of plaintiff, well knowing that this defendant owed them nothing and well knowing that they had no legal right to have a receiver appointed over the property of this defendant, instituted this action against this defendant and made application to this court for a receiver to be appointed to take charge of the property of this defendant and procured the appointment of such receiver, without notice to this defendant, for the sole and only purpose of using the property of this defendant in enterprises in which the managing officers of plaintiff were interested; that after the procuring of the appointment of such receiver, which was done illegally and without any grounds, over property worth from $2,000 to $3,000, when the debt claimed was only about $80, said plaintiff, through its managing officers, who had absolute control over said receiver, caused him to lease a boiler belonging to this defendant for a nominal sum so that it might be used without expense by said refining company in which the officers of plaintiff were interested, the actual rental value of which said boiler is at least $5 per day, said boiler being rented by said receiver for the nominal sum of $7.50 per month; that said plaintiff caused said receiver to rent out tools belonging to this defendant for a rental of almost nothing to enterprises in which the managing officers of plaintiff were interested, and, in short, this whole receivership was a scheme and conspiracy entered into by plaintiff, said receiver, and the enterprises in which managing officers of plaintiff were interested to secure the use of the tools and machinery of this defendant for nothing or next to nothing; that plaintiff by such unwarranted and illegal receivership has kept this defendant out of the uses of its said property from the 30th day of August, 1915, to the 15th day of May, 1916, a period of nine months; that the fair rental value of said property is the sum of $300 per month, which is the sum which the use of said property is reasonably worth, and has thus damaged this defendant in the sum of $2,700. Wherefore he prays judgment, etc.
Thereafter on the 15th day of May, 1916, an order was made by the trial court ordering the property in the hands of the receiver to be delivered to the Harvest Oil & Gas Company. Thereafter on the 12th day of October, 1916, the plaintiff filed its reply to the amended answer of defendant, which, after denying each and every allegation in defendant's amended answer contained, specifically denied that it had any control over said receiver; that it in any way joined in the scheme and conspiracy to deprive the defendant of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial