Luttrell v. Parker Drilling Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 38364,38364 |
| Citation | 341 P.2d 244,1959 OK 29 |
| Parties | E. E. LUTTRELL and Edith H. Luttrell, husband and wife, Plaintiffs in Error, v. PARKER DRILLING COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where drilling equipment is dismantled and left to remain upon the premises of the leashold, it does not constitute storage so as to give landowner a lien upon said equipment or possession thereof, although it may be placed on portion of land other than drilling site, and landowner may be enjoined from interfering with the owner of equipment in removal of the same from the leasehold.
Appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Oklahoma; Elvin J. Brown, Judge.
Action by Parker Drilling Company, a corporation, seeking an order of the District Court enjoining the defendants from interfering with or obstructing plaintiff in the removal of its property and equipment from certain real property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Hardin Ballard, Purcell, for plaintiffs in error.
Montgomery & Montgomery, Purcell, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal from the District Court of McClain County, Oklahoma, taken from the order of that court granting a permanent injunction.
The action was originally filed by the plaintiff, Parker Drilling Company, a corporation, seeking an order of the court enjoining the defendants, E. E. Luttrell and Edith H. Luttrell, husband and wife, from interfering with or obstructing plaintiff in the removal of its property and equipment from certain real property located in McClain County, Oklahoma.
It is agreed by both parties herein that plaintiff entered the land in question under a valid oil and gas lease, having a contract with the lessee for the purpose of drilling an oil and gas well, and that defendants were the owners of the surface of this land.
Plaintiff completed its work under its contract and secured a release of the obligations thereunder on February 7, 1957. Immediately thereafter, and on February 12, 1957, plaintiff began the removal of its machinery and equipment and continued with such removal until the 13th day of March, 1957, when the defendant, E. E. Luttrell, advised the agents of plaintiff to stay off the premises and not to remove any more equipment, whereupon this suit was filed.
It is the contention of the defendants that after the plaintiff completed the well and dismantled the equipment it was not removed from their land, but instead placed or stored upon the defendants' pasture land outside the drill-site area, and on land not theretofore used by plaintiff in their drilling operations. For this reason the defendants claim a lien on equipment for the reasonable value of the service they had involuntarily rendered plaintiff in storing said equipment, which was from February 1, 1957, until April 13, 1957, and by reason of their storage lien, they were entitled to possession of the personal property of plaintiff, and plaintiff was not entitled to injunction for the reason that it had a plain and adequate remedy at law by replevin.
Defendants' lien claim is based upon Title 42 O.S.1951 § 91, as amended 1955, which provides:
'Every person who, while lawfully in possession of an article of personal property, renders any service to the owner thereof by furnishing material, labor or skill for the protection, improvement, safekeeping, towing, storage or carriage thereof, has a special lien thereon, dependent on possession, for the compensation, if any, which is due to him from the owner for such service. * * *'
Defendants contend that they became in possession of equipment as soon as it was placed on their land outside the drill-site area, and cite 73 C.J.S. Property § 14, p. 197, note 84; Jones v. Bodkin, 172 Okl. 38, 44 P.2d 38. We have checked these authorities and cannot agree that they are applicable to the situation here presented. We cannot agree that a lien existed, since defendants did not contribute or furnish protection, improvement, safekeeping, towing, storage or carriage thereof, to the equipment. Defendants do not claim that they ever accepted the equipment for the purpose of rendering any of the above service, but that it was on their premises as a trespass.
It was held by the court in Jones v. Bodkin, supra, that parties' lien...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Brien Oil, L.L.C. v. Norman, 2010 OK CIV APP 23 (Okla. Civ. App. 1/22/2010)
...and gas purposes are considered trade fixtures." Garr-Woolley v. Martin, 1978 OK CIV APP 11, ¶10, 579 P.2d 206, 208-209; Luttrell v. Parker Drilling Co., 1959 OK 29, ¶11, 341 P.2d 244, 246. Upon expiration of a mineral lease, the lessee is granted a reasonable time to remove the casing, equ......
-
McCRAW OIL CO., INC. v. Pierce
...a reasonable amount of time. See Garr-Woolley v. Martin, 1978 OK CIV APP 11, ¶ 10, 579 P.2d 206, 208; see also Luttrell v. Parker Drilling Co., 1959 OK 29, 341 P.2d 244. ¶ 14 Oklahoma courts primarily look to the contracting parties' intent to determine whether underground equipment is a tr......
-
Garr-Woolley v. Martin
...and what is a reasonable time is to be determined from all the facts and circumstances of each particular case. See also Luttrell v. Parker Drilling Co., 341 P.2d 244; Stephens v. Lundy, 172 Okl. 79, 44 P.2d The question then becomes what happens to the equipment if the lessee fails to remo......
-
Hinds v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
...Co., 78 Okl. 208, 190 P. 391, 392 (1920); Cities Service Oil Company v. Dacus, Okl., 325 P.2d 1035, 1036 (1958); Luttrell v. Parker Drilling Co., Okl., 341 P.2d 244, 246 (1959); Marland Oil Co. of Oklahoma v. Hubbard, 168 Okl. 518, 34 P.2d 278 (1934).5 An overriding royalty was held not an ......