Liles v. Texas Co.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1928
• Docket Number: 27239
• Citation: 117 So. 229,166 La. 293
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: LILES et al. v. TEXAS CO

117 So. 229

166 La. 293

LILES et al. v. TEXAS CO

No. 27239

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 7, 1928

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; T. F Bell, Judge.

Suit by Mary J. Liles and others against the Texas Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs in an unsatisfactory amount, they appeal.

Judgment annulled, plaintiffs' demand rejected, and suit dismissed.

Hall &amp Bullock, of Shreveport, for appellants.

Hampden Story and Charles H. Blish, both of Shreveport, for appellee.

OPINION

O'NIELL, C. J.

This is a sequel -- in fact, a repetition -- of the suit of Liles et al. v. Producers' Oil Co. et al., 155 La. 385, 99 So. 339, and Liles et al. v. Texas Co. et al., 155 La. 396, 99 So. 343. The suit is for a fifth of the net value of 525,401 barrels of oil extracted -- a part by the Producers' Oil Company and a part by the Texas Company -- from a small tract of land, of which the plaintiffs owned one-fifth. The Texas Company, having bought out the Producers' Oil Company and assumed its obligations, is sued for a fifth of the oil taken by the Producers' Oil Company, as well as that taken by the Texas Company. The district court gave judgment against thedefendant, Texas Company, for a fifth of the net value of the oil taken by it, but rejected the plaintiffs' demand for the fifth of the net value of the oil taken by the Producers' Oil Company. The plaintiffs have appealed from the decision, and the defendant, answering the appeal, prays that the plaintiffs' demand be rejected entirely and their suit dismissed.

In the former suits, Liles et al. v Producers' Oil Co., 155 La. 385, 99 So. 339, and Liles et al. v. Texas Co. et al., 155 La. 396, 99 So. 343, it was held, according to the ruling in Liles et al. v. Barnhart et al., 152 La. 419, 93 So. 490, that the action, being in its nature an action for tort, was barred by the prescription of one year. This suit is between the same parties and for the fifth of the net value of the same and identical quantity of oil. The only difference between the suits is that in this suit, the plaintiffs do not aver that the oil was taken wrongfully, or that the price or value of it was misappropriated wrongfully, but aver merely that the defendant, having received the oil and the price of it by virtue of a void title, as to a fifth of it, "is bound by a contract to restore to petitioners their share of the price of the sale, less petitioners' part of the costs and expenses of production." Our opinion is that the cause of action in this case is the same as that which was disposed of in the former suit between the same parties. The difference is not in the cause of action, but only in the argument or reasoning with which the cause is presented. The action does not arise quasi ex contractu, as for the oil, or the value of the oil, belonging to the plaintiffs and received and appropriated by the defendant. The oil which the defendant reduced to possession and disposed of did not in fact belong to the plaintiffs, or to any one else, until it was reduced to possession by the defendant. It is well settled that oil beneath the surface of the earth is not subject to ownership, as corporeal property, separate from the land which it forms part of, until it is reduced to possession. Rives v. Gulf Refining Co., 133 La. 178, 62 So. 623; Cooke v. Gulf Refining Co., 135 La. 606, 616, 65 So. 756; Elder v. Ellerbe, 135 La. 990, 995, 66 So. 337; Strother v. Mangham, 138 La. 437, 70 So. 426; Saunders v. Busch-Everett Co., ...