Okla. Coal Co. v. Atkinson

Decision Date16 February 1926
Docket NumberCase Number: 16387
PartiesOKLAHOMA COAL CO. v. ATKINSON et al.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. Mines and Minerals--Miners' Liens--Liability of Property in Possession of Operating Company Under Conditional Sale.

Where, under a contract of conditional sale between the owning company and the operating company, it is stipulated that the operating company shall during the pendency of such negotiations operate the mines, and under the said terms, and while such vendee in possession employs miners to engage in developing said mines, and such operating company makes default in payment of their wages, then such property of the owners is charged with the lien as contained in section 7628 C. O. S. 1921.

2. Statutes--Construction -- Legislative Intent.

It is a cardinal rule that in the construction of statutes the legislative intent must govern, and to arrive at the legislative intent the entire act must be considered, together with all other enactments upon the same subject, and when the intention of the Legislature can be gathered from the entire statute, words may be modified, altered, or supplied to give the statute the force and effect which the Legislature intended. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission et al., 90 Okla. 84, 216 P. 917.

3. Judgment Sustained.

Record examined, and held that the same supports the judgment of the court.

Error from District Court, Okmulgee County; James Hepburn, Judge.

Action by R. Atkinson et al. against the Oklahoma Coal Company and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant named brings error. Affirmed.

Jones & Randolph and Ephraim H. Foster, for plaintiff in error.

C. E. B. Cutler, for defendants in error.

LESTER, J.

¶1 The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the court below.

¶2 This action was commenced by plaintiffs against the defendant and the Consolidated Fuel Company in the superior court of Okmulgee county, and thereafter the cause was transferred to the district court of Okmulgee county.

¶3 The plaintiffs alleged in their petition that they were engaged in the occupation of mining coal, and assert that they had performed work and labor in the mines operated by Consolidated Fuel Company, and that said company had made default in the payment of their wages for labor performed. They prayed judgment for the amount due them for such labor and also a lien on the mine and property where said labor and work had been performed. The plaintiffs also alleged in their petition that the defendant Oklahoma Coal Company claims some right, title or interest in the property upon which the said plaintiffs had performed such labor, but that whatever right, title, or interest it had in said property was junior and inferior to the rights of the plaintiffs' lien thereon.

¶4 The Oklahoma Coal Company filed its separate answer, as did the Consolidated Fuel Company. The plaintiffs filed their reply to the answer of the Oklahoma Coal Company, and on the issues presented by the pleadings of the plaintiffs and the Oklahoma Coal Company, a trial was had to the court, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim for labor and work performed, and adjudging their lien prior to the interest, right, or claim of the Oklahoma Coal Company. The Consolidated Fuel Company made no appearance at the trial, and accordingly judgment was rendered against it in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount which they claimed as due them for their labor and services. From the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Oklahoma Coal Company, the latter prosecutes this appeal to reverse the same.

¶5 The defendant in its brief and argument groups its assignments of error from one to four, inclusive, and discusses them together. As heretofore stated, the Oklahoma Coal Company was made a party defendant by the plaintiffs, and they alleged:

"Plaintiffs further allege that the defendant, Oklahoma Coal Company, claims some right, title, or interest in or to the above described properties; that the nature of said claims of said Oklahoma Coal Company is to said plaintiffs unknown, and whatever right, title, or interest said Oklahoma Coal Company has is junior and inferior to the rights of said plaintiffs to a lien on said real and personal property, and said defendant, Oklahoma Coal Company, should be required to file its answer herein setting forth the exact nature of its claim."

¶6 The defendant Oklahoma Coal Company filed its answer to said petition, in which it alleged that it was the owner of all the property therein described, and that said Consolidated Fuel Company had no right, title, or interest therein, except as vendee in possession under a certain executory contract of sale, which is set out as an exhibit to the answer. In the answer of the Oklahoma Coal Company it attached a copy of the executory contract of sale made with the said Consolidated Fuel Company and made the same a part of its answer, and said contract was thereafterward introduced in evidence in the trial of said cause. It was provided in paragraph 4 of said contract of sale that the Consolidated Fuel Company should, during its occupancy of said premises, pay all taxes, assessments, and other governmental charges levied or assessed on or against any of the property included in said contract. Paragraph 6 of article 2 of the said contract provided:

"The party of the second part further agrees to mine and operate said mines in a workmanlike and skillful manner, according to improved methods of modern mining appropriate to the region, and it shall comply with all statutory laws, whether federal, state, or municipal, regulating and affecting, and said party of the second part agrees, at its own expense, to maintain the collieries, improvements, buildings, dwelling houses and other property covered by this contract, whether real or personal, in good and serviceable condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted."

¶7 Paragraph 1 of article 4 of said contract provided:

"The party of the second part further agrees in consideration of the sale of said properties to it and the extension of time in the payment thereof to expend in improvements on said property the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($ 50,000), of which said amount twenty-five thousand dollars ($ 25,000) shall be expended as soon as practicable after the execution and ratification of this contract and the balance on or before July 1, 1923. The party of the first part shall have access at any reasonable time to the books of account of the party of the second part and to the property in order to determine that such expenditures have been made."

¶8 At the trial between the plaintiffs and the Oklahoma Coal Company, certain stipulations were entered into between said plaintiffs and the Oklahoma Coal Company. Among the facts stipulated are the following:

"It is further stipulated and agreed that said property, at the times involved herein, was in the possession of the Consolidated Fuel Company, a corporation, under and by virtue of a certain contract of sale executed by the Oklahoma Coal Company and the Consolidated Fuel Company on the 26th day of September 1922. * * * It is further stipulated that the Consolidated Fuel Company took possession of the property involved herein, both real and personal, on or about the 1st day of January, 1923, under and in pursuance of the terms of said contract entered into by and between the Oklahoma Coal Company and the Consolidated Fuel Company above referred to, and remained in possession and in full control of said property from the last-mentioned date until the appointment of receivers in this cause, and that said Consolidated Fuel Company operated the mines located on said property and in the operation of said mines employed the plaintiffs herein as coal miners, and that said plaintiffs and each of them performed labor and services as set forth in their petition for and on behalf of the Consolidated Fuel Company in the operation of said mines. That said plaintiffs were employed by the Consolidated Fuel Company under a contract, by the terms of which said plaintiffs and each of them were to be paid their wages as such miners, each 15 days. That all of the wages due said miners were paid up to and including the 14th day of May, 1924. That said Consolidated Fuel Company defaulted on the pay roll due said plaintiffs and each of them, on the 1st day of June, 1924, for the period of time running from May 15th, to June 1, 1924, and thereafter defaulted on the pay roll due said plaintiffs and each of them for the period of time extending from, June 11th to June 16th, inclusive. * * * It is further stipulated and agreed that the labor and services rendered and performed by said plaintiffs were all rendered and performed upon what is known as 'Mine No. 5,' and that said mine is located upon leased property in the S. 1/2 of the N.E. 1/4 of section 32, township 12 north, range 13 east, Okmulgee county, Oklahoma.
"It is further stipulated and agreed that there is located on mine No. 5, a tipple and all the necessary machinery for the purpose of operating and developing the same of the total value of not less than $ 10,000."

¶9 The defendant, the Oklahoma Coal Company, in its answer alleged the following:

"This defendant is informed and believes that said Consolidated Fuel Company did expend during the period of its occupancy of said premises some amount on improvements and additions thereto, the exact amount which is to this defendant unknown, but it alleged the amount expended is inconsiderable, amounting to
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Lund v. Nichols, Case Number: 27082
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1936
    ...Corporation Commission, 90 Okla. 84, 216 P. 917; Protest of Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 137 Okla. 186, 279 P. 319; Oklahoma Coal Co. v. Atkinson, 121 Okla. 59, 247 P. 366; Schaffer v. Board of Com'rs of Muskogee County, 33 Okla. 288, 124 P. 1069; Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Gist, 79 Okla.......
  • Dowell v. Bd. of Ed. of Okla. City
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1939
    ...upon the same subject. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission (1923) 90 Okla. 84, 216 P. 917; Oklahoma Coal Co. v. Atkinson (1926) 121 Okla. 59, 247 P. 366; 25 R. C. L. :1060. Section 6786, O. S. 1931 (70 Okla. 'St. Ann. sec. 66), provides the manner of giving notice of both ann......
  • In re Protest of Chi. R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1929
    ...it, useless or deleterious." ¶22 In Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Corporation Commission, 90 Okla. 84, 216 P. 917, and Oklahoma Coal Co. v. Atkinson, 121 Okla. 59, 247 P. 366: "It is a cardinal rule that in the construction of statutes the legislative intent must govern, and to arrive at the ......
  • Wagner v. Swan
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1933
    ...to accomplish the purpose for which such acts were passed. Brown v. Miller, 89 Okla. 287, 215 P. 748. See, also, Oklahoma Coal Co. v. Atkinson et al., 121 Okla. 59, 247 P. 366. In the case of State v. State ex rel. Schull, 142, Okla. 293, 286 P. 891, this court stated the rule as follows:"W......
  • 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