Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Jenkins
Decision Date | 28 June 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 10859.,10859. |
Citation | 91 F.2d 183 |
Parties | PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. et al. v. JENKINS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Rayburn L. Foster, of Bartlesville, Okl. (R. H. Hudson, of Bartlesville, Okl., Marsh & Marsh and Mahony & Yocum, all of El Dorado, Ark., and Franklin E. Kennamer, Jr., of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.
Robert C. Knox, of El Dorado, Ark. (L. B. Smead, of Camden, Ark., and J. V. Spencer, of El Dorado, Ark., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WOODROUGH, THOMAS, and FARIS, Circuit Judges.
In June, 1934, Roy O. Jenkins, an employee of the Phillips Petroleum Company residing in Arkansas, sued that company and Joe H. Myers, a locally resident coemployee, in the circuit court of Ouachita county, Ark., for damages for personal injury occasioned by negligence and obtained judgment for $50,000, which was modified on appeal to the Supreme Court of the state in May, 1935, by reducing the amount to $30,000. A further appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States resulted in affirmance of the judgment in that amount. 297 U.S. 629, 56 S.Ct. 611, 80 L. Ed. 943. The petroleum company and the bonding companies which had become liable on supersedeas bonds brought this suit in equity in the federal District Court in May, 1936, to obtain relief from the judgment, claiming, (1) that they were entitled to have Jenkins enjoined from executing his judgment because he had obtained it by the practice of extrinsic fraud, in that he had fraudulently simulated an injury which he had not received and a disability, when he was not disabled at all, but only pretended to be, and in that he had conspired with a doctor who had instructed and helped him so that he was able to and did deceive physicians who examined him and testified in the case, and deceived the court and jury into unjustified belief that he had been seriously injured; and, (2), that they were entitled to be relieved from the judgment under the provisions of the statutes of Arkansas on the ground of newly discovered evidence set out in the bill. The coemployee, Joe H. Myers, who had become a resident of Oklahoma, intervened in the case and joined in the allegations and prayer of the plaintiffs.
On the trial of the equity suit findings of fact and conclusions of law were made favorable to Jenkins and the suit was dismissed. The petroleum company, Joe H. Myers, and the bonding companies, have appealed. The points argued on the appeal under the assignments of error are (1) that the findings of the trial court are against the weight of the evidence; (2) that "the false history related by Jenkins to examining physicians and their conclusions based thereon, together with his false testimony before the court and jury as to the extent of his injury constituted extrinsic fraud warranting a federal court of equity in enjoining the enforcement of the judgment"; and (3) that "even though the fraud established by the evidence should be deemed intrinsic and not extrinsic, the substantive right to relief against such judgment, created by the statutes of Arkansas, should be applied and enforced in the federal court. * * *"
The findings of the trial court were:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Griffith v. Bank of New York
...governed the fraud cases. Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 80, 83, 25 L.Ed. 407; Eggers v. Krueger, 9 Cir., 236 F. 852; Phillips Petroleum Co. et al. v. Jenkins, 8 Cir., 91 F.2d 183; Smith v. Apple, 8 Cir., 6 F.2d 559; Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U.S. 115, 35 S.Ct. 255, 59 L.Ed. 492; Davenport ......
-
Gilder v. Warfield
... ... 773, 23 P.2d 802; Price v ... Smith, Tex. Civ. App., 109 S.W.2d 1144; Phillips ... Petroleum Co., v. Jenkins, C. C. A. Ark., 91 F.2d 183.) ... Under ... the facts ... ...
-
Alexander v. Hagedorn
...considered in the judgment assailed. (Italics ours.) United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93. In Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Jenkins, 8 Cir., 91 F.2d 183, 187, it is said that extrinsic fraud is wrongful conduct of the successful party practiced outside of an adversary trial an......
-
Browning v. Prostok
...wrongful conduct occurring outside of the adversarial proceedings. See Hagedorn, 226 S.W.2d at 1002 (citing Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Jenkins, 91 F.2d 183, 187 (8th Cir.1937)). The fraud must be collateral to the matter tried and not something which was actually or potentially in issue. Mon......