Oil Run Petroleum Co. v. Gale S. The Oil Run Petroleum Co.

• Decision Date: 17 July 1873
• Citation: 6 W.Va. 525
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Oil Run Petroleum Co. v. Gale et als. The Oil Run Petroleum Company, Plaintiff and Appellee, against William Cady and Amos George, Defendants, and E. L. Gale and Mary Gale, Defendants and Appellants.

6 W.Va. 525

Oil Run Petroleum Co.

v.Gale et als.

The Oil Run Petroleum Company, Plaintiff and

Appellee, against William Cady and Amos

George, Defendants, and E. L. Gale and

Mary Gale, Defendants and Appellants.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Decided July 17th, 1873.

Syllabus.

1. A court of equity will take jurisdiction of a bill of interpleader where it appears there is either no remedy at all at law, or that the legal remedy is inadeqdate for the protection of the party filing the bill.

2. It is not necessary, to entitle a party to come into equity, that the titles of the claimant should be both purely legal. It is ordinarily sufficient to found the jurisdiction, that one is legal and the other is equitable. It seems that when one of the claims is purely equitable, it is indispensable to come into equity.

8. It is not proper for the appellate court, in determing an appeal from an order of injunction granted by a judge in vacation, or a court, to decide which of the claimants has the better claim or right..

4. Taking the allegations contained in the bill in this case as true, the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

5. In interpleader in equity, it is necessary that the claimants should

should claim the same debt or thing.

6. The claimants in the bill mentioned in this ctjse, under the statements and allegations of the bill, claim the same rent..

7. P., the tenant in possession, alleges in his bill that rent oil is due from him, under a deed of lease executed by G. and G, his wife, and that the same rent oil is claimed by G. and G., his wife, each, and also by C. by virtue of said deed of lease, and that G. the husband has sued out a distress warrant for the unpaid rent oil, and placed the same in the hands of a constable, who has levied a distress warrant upon the rent oil and other property of P. The bill being otherwise sufficient as a bill of interpleader, makes the constable a party defendant, and prays an injunction, and that the property levied on be restored, and that a special receiver be appointed to receive the rent oil in arrear, and that to become due from P., until it is determined by the court which of the claimants has the better right. Held,

That the constable is a proper party to the bill, not for the purpose of interpleading; but simply to make the order of injunction and the restoration of the property effective.

8. G. and G., his wife, by deed of lease duly executed, acknowledged and recorded grant to P.'s assignors, for a large money consideration paid down, and for a large rent to be paid in oil as the oil is produced from the leased premises, a hundred acres of land for the term of 20 years. G. the wife is the fee simple owner of the land, subject to the marital rights of G. the husband therein, which is at least an estate during the joint lives of G. and G., the wife. G. the husband prior to the date of the deed of lease, by contract, sold to C. his entire interest for his life in a tract of 250 acres, covering the said 100 acres. P. and his assignors, at the date of the lease and purchase from G. and G. the wife, and for along time afterwards, had no notice or knowledge whatever of the contract of G. the husband with C. about said land. After P. had obtained the lease and taken possession of the leased premises and had paid the oil rent to G. the husband under the deed of lease, as it accrued for some time, C. brought suit against G. the husband to compel him to execute to him a deed conveying the legal title to the 250 acres for his life estate. C. obtained a final decree against G. the husband for such deed, and appoint-ing a commissioner to convey the life estate of G. in the 250 acres of land to C. G. and G. his wife then each notify P. that they each claim the unpaid and accruing rent oil under the lease. C. notifies P. that he claims the unpaid and accruing rent oil under the lease, by virtue of said decree, and notifies P. not to pay it to G. nor G. his wife. P. is ready and willing to pay the rent oil in arrear to the proper claimant, and has it on hand for the purpose? but is ignorant as to which is the "better claim of the claimants. G. the husband is insolvent, and sues out a distress warrant against P's. property on the leased premises, and causes the oil rent in P's. possession, together with the large amount of other personal property of P., on the leased premises to be levied on for the rent oil in arrear. P. files his bill of interpleader against G. and G. his wife and C. Held,

That equity in such case has jurisdiction; that C.'s claim to the rent oil, reserved in the lease, under G., must be considered, for the purposes of this case, to have commenced at the date of the decree, which was after the date o± the deed of lease.

9. According to the averments of the bill filed, the persons claiming the rent oil, claim in priority of contract and tenure sufficiently for the purposes of the bill.

10. the allegations and averments of the bill, as recited m the opinion in this case, are sufficient to constitute a good bill of interpleader 11. If the affidavit filed with the bill is not of itself sufficient to authorize a judge to grant an injunction, still if there are properly certified official copies of documents and records filed with the bill as exhibits and evidence, and they, together with the affidavit, are sufficient to satisfy the judgment that the injunction should be granted, it is not error for the judge to grant the injunction.

11. In interpleader, ordinarily, a special receiver should not be appointed to take possession of the property without notice, still there are exceptions to the rule, as where immediate action is necessary to prevent great loss or injury, and especially where it is not sought to dispossess a party of his own property.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Boggess, Sands and Hutchinson for Appellants.

Cole and Johnson for Appellee.

Haymond, President.

The Plaintiff presented its bill of interpleader praying an injunction, and the appointment of a special receiver, to the Judge of the Circuit Court of the county of Ritchie, who refused to grant the injunction, and appoint a receiver. In a short time afterwards, the Plaintiff presented the bill to Edwin Maxwell, one of Judges of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and on the 25th day of May 1872, he granted the injunction prayed for, and Amos George, constable of Grant township, in Ritchie county, was directed by the order granting the injunction to release from levy, and restore to the Plain, tiff its property levied upon by virtue of the distress warrant in the bill mentioned. Judge MaxWell at the same time by his order appointed J. N. Camden special receiver of said Circuit Court; and directed that upon his going his bond with good security in the penalty of $20,000.00 conditioned to have the oil thereinafter mentioned, or the proceeds of the sale thereof, forthcoming to answer any order of said Court in relation thereto, he should take into his possession and control all the rent oil then due from the Plaintiff according to the terms of the lease in the bill mentioned, or that which should thereafter become due prior to the first day of August next thereafter; and if in his opinion the same ought at any time to be done, to sell the oil at its highest market value, and hold the proceeds thereof subject to the order of the Court, On the 17th of May 1872, the bill with the orders of the Judge thereon was filed in the clerks office of the Circuit Court of Ritchie county. On the same day, the injunction bond required was executed and filed in the said office, and the clerk issued a sum-mons in the case against the Defendants in the bill, and endorsed thereon the order of injuction with the order of release of property, together with his certificate that the injunction bond had been given. On the 27th of May, the summons was executed on Amos George, and on the 28th. it was executed on Mary Gale and E. L. Gale two of the Defendants named in the bill. The three last named persons and William Cady was made Defendants to the bill with said George.

Afterwards, on the 31st day of May 1872, the special receiver executed and filed in the clerk's office aforesaid the bond with security required by the order of Judge Maxwell. On the day last named, Mary Gale and E. L. Gale filed an undertaking with the clerk of the Circuit Court for an appeal "from the order of injunction granted in the cause, and on the 1st day of June thereafter, the Appellants caused a notice to be served on C. C. Cole, counsel for the Plaintiff, of their intention to appeal from the order of injunction, granted in the cause, and desired stay of execution in the case, and that they had filed in the clerks office of the Circuit Court an undertaking with security in manner and form as required by law when stay of execution is desired. This notice was filed in said clerk's office on the 3rd day of June 1872. The case is now before us upon appeal from the order of injunction granted in the case. The bill alleges substantially that the Plaintiff is the lessee of defendants E. L. Gale and Mary Gale his wife of a tract of land containing 100 acres in the county of Ritchie, which is described in a deed dated the 27th of December 1864, and of record in said county, made by Gale and wife to John S. Carlile and others, an official copy of which is filed as an exhibit; that the grantees of the deed of lease transferred and assigned to Plaintiff all their interest under the deed; that the Plaintiff now is, and has for years been, in possession of the said 100 acres of land, under ana by virtue of the deed of lease so transferred and assigned to it, and has been working, improving and developing the same by sinking a large number of oil wells thereon, and pumping therefrom large quantities of oil, of which, under the terms of the deed of lease, it (Plaintiff) is required to pay to the lessors the one-fourth part, and has paid...