Noble v. Johnson

Decision Date15 April 1930
Docket NumberCase Number: 19194
Citation1930 OK 179,145 Okla. 46,291 P. 26
PartiesNOBLE et al. v. JOHNSON.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Review of Equity Case--Conclusiveness of Referee's Findings.

Where an action in equity has been referred to a referee to hear the testimony, make findings of facts, conclusions of law, and report these, together with the testimony, to the court, and such report of the referee is approved in whole or in part by the trial court, and judgment rendered thereon, and on appeal to this court the error complained of is that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee and the judgment of the trial court are not sustained by the evidence, such findings of fact and judgment will not be disturbed, unless this court can say they are clearly against the weight of the evidence.

2. Oil and Gas--Action by Part Owner of Lease for Accounting for Share of Production--Burden on Defendant to Prove Defense of Fraud on Part of Plaintiff in Carrying His Interest in Lease in Name of Third Party to Defraud Creditors.

Where a party defendant seeks to avoid liability and defeat recovery of judgment against him in an accounting action, and predicates his defense, in part, on the ground that the assignment of an interest in an oil and gas lease was taken by plaintiff in the name of a third party and a re-assignment thereof from such third party to the plaintiff was withheld from record for approximately three years with the fraudulent intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of the plaintiff, the true owner, the burden is upon such defendant to establish the alleged fraud, as it will not be implied from circumstances which only awaken suspicion.

3. Judgment--Issues Between Codefendants.

As a general rule, a judgment settles nothing between codefendants who are not adversary parties among themselves, and unless their conflicting or hostile claims were brought in issue by proper pleadings or otherwise, and were actually litigated and adjudicated in the action.

4. Estoppel--Office of Doctrine of Estoppel.

The doctrine of estoppel is not intended to work a positive gain to a party; its office is to protect a party from a loss, which, but for the estoppel, he could not escape.

5. Appeal and Error--Review--Sufficiency of Evidence in Equity Case.

In an equitable action, the Supreme Court will examine and weigh the evidence, and, if the judgment of the trial court in whole or in part is clearly against the weight thereof, will render, or cause to be rendered, such judgment as should have been rendered.

6. Same--Oil and Gas--Judgment for Plaintiff for Share of Production Sustained as Modified.

From an examination of the evidence and entire record in this cause, it is found and held that the judgment of the trial court is not against the clear weight of the evidence, and should be affirmed except as to one item of expense involved in the accounting; and the judgment to that extent is reduced, and, as so modified, is affirmed.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Lucius Babcock, Judge.

Action by J. A. Johnson against Chas. F. Noble and Creek Oil Corporation et al. Judgment for plaintiff against defendants Noble and Creek Oil Corporation, from which they appeal. Modified and affirmed.

Allen, Underwood & Smith and Leahy, Maxey, MacDonald & Holden, for plaintiffs in error.

Twyford & Smith, for defendant in error.

LEACH, C.

¶1 J. A. Johnson, the defendant in error, commenced this action in the district court of Oklahoma county against Chas. F. Noble and Creek Oil Corporation, the plaintiffs in error, and J. A. Raney, the Gypsy Oil Company et al., and alleged, in part and in substance, in his petition, that on October 25, 1921, he became the owner of an undivided six-sevenths of a one-sixteenth interest in an oil and gas lease on a certain tract of land in Creek county; that the defendants Chas. F. Noble and J. A. Raney were also owners of an interest in the lease, and that the defendant Noble has been in actual possession of the described leasehold; that said lease is now and has been producing large quantities of oil and gas; that the defendants received, sold, and converted the oil and gas and the proceeds thereof, and failed to account to the plaintiff for his share, after due demand therefor, although the defendants and each of them had actual and constructive knowledge of the title and ownership of the plaintiff in and to said leasehold interest; that the records showing the amount of oil produced from said lease were in the exclusive possession and control of the defendants, particularly Chas. F. Noble, who refused to permit the plaintiff to examine such records, and further alleged that Noble owned, controlled, and operated the Creek Oil Corporation.

¶2 The plaintiff prayed for an accounting and for judgment against the defendants for the sum of $ 16,042.33, the amount which he alleged to be due him, and for such further sum as might be found due on accounting and for general relief.

¶3 The defendant Raney, by answer and cross-petition, alleged that he was the owner of a one-seventh of a one-sixteenth interest in the lease involved, admitted the ownership asserted by the plaintiff, Johnson, in such lease, and further alleged that the defendants Noble and Creek Oil Corporation had been in possession of the leasehold since the beginning of operation thereon, had produced and sold large quantities of oil and gas therefrom, and had refused to account to him, Raney, for his proper share thereof, and prayed for an accounting and for judgment for his proper share.

¶4 The defendant Gypsy Oil Company, by answer, alleged that it was the owner of a one-half interest, also a three-one hundred twelfths interest in the lease involved; set out certain matters of defense, and generally denied any liability to the plaintiff.

¶5 The defendants Chas. F. Noble and Creek Oil Corporation filed a joint answer in the suit, and alleged, in part and in substance, that at one time the defendant Noble was the owner of a one-half interest in the lease in question, but that he assigned such interest, a one-sixteenth, to J. A. Raney, and seven-sixteenths to Creek Oil Corporation; that the interest was assigned Raney at the request and direction of the plaintiff, Johnson, who advised them that he was interested with Raney in the interest, and that Raney was a trustee for him, and that all transactions with reference to the interest so assigned should be managed and directed by Raney; that the answering defendants thereafter carried on their negotiations regarding such one-sixteenth interest with the defendant Raney; that in a certain action in the district court of Creek county, entitled "Charles F. Noble Oil & Gas Co. v. Charles F. Noble, J.

¶6 A. Raney, and Creek Oil Corp.", the defendant Raney, for himself and as trustee of Johnson, entered into a written arbitration agreement, and that an award and decree was entered in that action, wherein the interest of J. A. Raney in the lease in question was fixed at a one-thirty-second interest; that the interest of the said Johnson, if any he had in such lease, was fixed by such decree, and included in the one-thirty-second interest awarded the defendant Raney, and that they, Raney and Johnson, by their conduct and representations, were estopped from asserting a claim to more than a one-thirty-second interest in the lease, and that they were bound by such award and decree. It was further alleged that Johnson was fully aware of the manner in which the proceeds derived from the lease were being distributed, and had full knowledge of the pendency of the action in Creek county, and appeared as a witness therein; that he withheld from record his assignment from Raney until long after the judgment in Creek county became final and binding; that the answering defendants had properly accounted, paid over, or tendered to J. A. Raney, individually and as trustee of Johnson, all sums due them.

¶7 By later amendment to their answer, Noble and Creek Oil Corporation alleged that the defendant J. A. Raney took the assignment of a one-sixteenth interest in the lease and carried the same in his name for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the creditors of the plaintiff, Johnson, and that, by reason of such fact, the plaintiff, Johnson, and defendant Raney were estopped to allege the existence of any interest in the lease in the plaintiff or to question the decree of the district court of Creek county, or the distribution of the proceeds under the lease as against the answering defendants.

¶8 The cause was referred by the district court of Oklahoma county to Hon. M. M. Thomas, as a referee, who, after hearing the evidence, made certain findings of fact and conclusions of law, on which the trial court, after sustaining the plaintiff's objection to one finding of fact and conclusion of law by the referee, entered judgment in the case in favor of Johnson, against the defendants Noble and Creek Oil Corporation, for the sum of $ 17,001.51. Their motion for a new trial was denied, and they bring this appeal and assign as error, with others, the action of the trial court in approving the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee and in rendering judgment thereon against them for an excessive amount not supported by the law and the evidence and in failing to allow them, Noble and Creek Oil Corporation, credit for a proportionate part of the expenses in drilling the first well on the lease involved and a proportionate part of the expenses expended in defending suits involving the title to the lease, and that the trial court erred in overruling their motion for a new trial, which motion was based in part on the ground that the judgment is against the law and the evidence and is not supported thereby.

¶9 The plaintiffs in error Noble and Creek Oil Corporation first present and argue the following prop...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Brougham v. Indep. Potash & Chem. Co., Case Number: 32136
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1948
    ...the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless against the clear weight of the evidence, quoting from the case of Noble v. Johnson, 145 Okla. 46, 291 P. 26. The rule applicable, in any event, in an action at law is stated in the case of Cromwell v. Hamilton, 89 Okla. 225, 214 P. 694, a......
  • Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Davis
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1942
    ...is not always made. But as applied to actions of purely equitable cognizance, the proper rule is stated and applied in Noble et al. v. Johnson, 145 Okla. 46, 291 P. 26. Therein we held:"Where an action in equity has been referred to a referee to hear the testimony, make findings of facts, c......
  • Johnson v. Noble
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1936
    ...Company, surety on the supersedeas bond of appellants in that case, in the sum of $13,724.46, with interest thereon. Noble v. Johnson, 145 Okla. 46, 291 P. 26. Petition for rehearing was denied and the mandate was issued on September 23, 1930, and thereafter was spread of record in the dist......
  • Williams v. Edwards
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1933
    ...use for the purpose of enabling the one claiming its benefits to penalize the opposite party. As was said in the case of Noble v. Johnson, 145 Okla. 46, 291 P. 26, in syllabus paragraph 4:"The doctrine of estoppel is not intended to work a positive gain to a party; its office is to protect ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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