Mitchell Drilling Co. v. Robert L. Kinkaid, Inc., 28992.

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Citation105 P.2d 764,188 Okla. 25,1940 OK 384
Docket Number28992.
Decision Date24 September 1940

105 P.2d 764

188 Okla. 25, 1940 OK 384


No. 28992.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 24, 1940

Syllabus by the Court.

1. When, in an action to foreclose numerous mechanics' liens, a contractor asserts a prior lien, and the court determines the amounts of the various mechanics' liens and decrees foreclosure thereof, and determines the amount of the contractor's lien and adjudges same to be prior to the mechanics' liens, and orders foreclosure sale of the property subject to the said lien of the contractor, and such judgment becomes final, such judgment as to the contractor's lien, whether correct or incorrect, cannot be stricken down on collateral attack as being void for lack of judicial power to render it.

2. When property is ordered sold at judicial sale, clearly specifying that same shall be sold subject to certain prior liens established and adjudged in such judgment of the court, the purchaser at such sale generally takes title subject to such adjudicated liens.

3. Record examined, and held, there was nothing shown to bar or estop plaintiff in error from asserting his rights as to certain oil production from the leasehold involved, nor any pleading or sufficient showing of discharge by payment.

Appeal from District Court, Hughes County; Hon. H. H. Edwards, Judge.

Action by Robert L. Kinkaid, Incorporated, against Mitchell Drilling Company, a copartnership to quiet title to oil and gas lease. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

John E. Curran, Morris L. Bradford, and Charles A. Kothe, all of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Pryor & Sandlin, of Holdenville, for defendant in error.

WELCH, Vice Chief Justice.

Certain persons not interested herein owned three oil and gas leases on separate tracts of land. One of them is referred to as the Atkins lease. The owners contracted with Mitchell Drilling Company, a co-partnership, defendants in the lower court, and herein designated as such, to drill wells on the several tracts. Said Mitchell Company to receive certain cash payments and certain further payments out of 15% of the oil produced. The wells were drilled as producers, after which suit was instituted in the district court of Hughes County to foreclose numerous statutory liens against the several properties. Defendant Mitchell Company was a party to that suit. Therein a receiver of the properties was appointed, numerous liens were foreclosed and this defendant Mitchell Company was specifically adjudged to have a lien upon the three leases for the sum of $14,295.68 as a first and prior lien on 15% of the entire production therefrom. Therein the properties were ordered sold to satisfy the liens which were foreclosed (not including this defendant's prior lien), and the property was specifically ordered to be sold subject to the said prior lien of this defendant.

Notice of sale was given in full conformity with the judgment and order of sale, specifying clearly that the sale would be made subject to this defendant's prior lien.

The receiver made public sale at the time and place stated in the notice and made return thereof showing sales of the various properties to the several purchasers. The return of sale was silent as to whether the property was or was not sold subject to the prior lien of defendant, Mitchell Company, though reciting generally that the sale was made pursuant to the order of sale.

At the hearing on motion to confirm that sale there were objections to confirmation and the matter was reopened, additional bids were received by the Judge of the Court, and upon final bids the sale of the various items was approved and confirmed. The order of confirmation contained [105 P.2d 766] no statement as to whether the sale was subject to the lien of the defendant, Mitchell Company. Likewise the conveyance executed by the receiver was silent as to whether the conveyance was or was not subject to the lien of the defendant, Mitchell Company. The plaintiff contends that in receiving further bids on confirmation day the district judge stated the property would be sold free and clear of liens.


To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT