Schofield v. Melton Dist. Judge

• Decision Date: 26 August 1933
• Docket Number: Case Number: 24718
• Citation: 25 P.2d 279,1933 OK 447,166 Okla. 64
• Parties: SCHOFIELD et al. v. MELTON Dist. Judge.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1933 OK 447

25 P.2d 279

166 Okla. 64

SCHOFIELD et al. v. MELTON Dist. Judge.

Case Number: 24718

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: August 26, 1933

Syllabus

¶0 1. Courts--Receivers--Conflicting Jurisdiction.

A district court of this state has no authority to appoint a receiver where a court of equal jurisdiction has already appointed one; the court first acquiring jurisdiction of the subject-matter and which is first put in motion retains jurisdiction to the end of the controversy to the exclusion of other courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction.

2. Prohibition--Remedy to Prevent Intolerable Conflict of Jurisdiction Between Inferior Courts.

An original proceeding in this court seeking a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent an intolerable conflict of jurisdiction between two inferior courts of equal jurisdiction.

3. Same--Conditions Justifying Application to Supreme Court for Writ Without Presenting to Inferior Court Challenge to Jurisdiction.

As a rule, an application for a writ of prohibition must be preceded by a challenge to the jurisdiction of the inferior court presented to that court. In proper cases, however, this court may, in the exercise of judicial discretion, excuse the failure to observe this rule; as where it appears that compliance with the rule would be futile, or the necessary delay occasioned by its observance would be highly injurious to the interests of the party, or in cases where matters concerning public affairs are involved.

Original action in the Supreme Court by M. B. Schofield and S. J. Campbell, receivers, Gas Service Corporation, against Harve L. Melton, District Judge of Pittsburg County, for writ of prohibition. Writ granted.

McComb, Henshaw & Conrad, for plaintiffs.

E. F. Maley and Gordon & Gordon, for respondent.

BUSBY, J.

¶1 This is an original action instituted in this court for the purpose of obtaining a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent, Harve L. Melton, as district judge of the district court of Pittsburg county, Okla., from continuing to exercise jurisdiction and control over certain property situated in Pittsburg and Hughes counties through a receiver appointed by him in his official capacity. The fact situation in this case presents a question of conflict of jurisdiction between two of the district courts of this state. Both the district court of Oklahoma county and the district court of Pittsburg county are undertaking to exercise control and supervision over the same property through their respective receivers.

¶2 On the 17th day of January, 1933, an action was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county by M. B. Schofield, a creditor of the Gas Service Corporation, and Art Burns and Rant Jeffries, as directors of that corporation, against the Gas Service Corporation, seeking the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the assets and properties of the defendant corporation. Immediately thereafter the defendant entered its general appearance and filed an answer in which it agreed that a receiver should be appointed. Acting on the pleadings thus filed, the district court of Oklahoma county, without notice to other parties who might be interested, appointed M. B. Schofield and S. J. Campbell as receivers, authorizing and directing them to take charge of the property and assets of the defendant corporation. The receivers thus appointed qualified in the manner provided by law for the performance of their duty, and on the 18th day of January, 1933, took charge of the books and accounts receivable of the defendant and asserted a possessory right to and control over the physical properties of the defendant corporation. In this connection it appears that the principal office of the defendant corporation was located in Oklahoma City, while the most of its physical properties were located in Hughes and Pittsburg counties. The corporation had been organized with a view to furnishing natural gas to the Oklahoma State Penitentiary situated at McAlester, in Pittsburg county. It claims ownership of a pipe line from a gas field in Hughes county to the penitentiary at McAlester, acquired for the purpose of carrying on its business.

¶3 Subsequent to the time that the receiver was appointed by the district court of Oklahoma county, an action was filed in the district court of Pittsburg county in which Earl Thompson was plaintiff and various persons, including the Gas Service Corporation and S. J. Campbell, were made defendants. In that action it was asserted that S. J. Campbell, as trustee, was the owner of the gas pipe line and property used in connection therewith, and that the defendant Gas Service Corporation was asserting some unknown interest therein, and that the plaintiff, by virtue of a contract made with the defendant Campbell and services performed pursuant to that contract, was entitled to a lien upon said property for the sum of $ 3,496. The plaintiff in that action sought to foreclose his lien, and ancillary thereto to secure the appointment of a receiver. The district court of Pittsburg county, without notice to parties who might be interested in the matter, proceeded to appoint a receiver to take charge of the property involved.

¶4 On the 9th day of February, 1933, the receivers appointed by the Oklahoma county district court made an application to that court for injunctive relief to prevent the receiver appointed by the district court of Pittsburg county from interfering with their possession of the property. Acting on the application, the district court of Oklahoma county issued a temporary restraining order returnable on the 20th day of February, 1933. The receiver of the district court of Pittsburg county appeared in the district court of Oklahoma county for the purpose of contesting the application. The Oklahoma county court, after hearing the matter, decided that it was without jurisdiction to enjoin the agent of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and therefore refused to grant injunctive relief. In passing upon the matter, however, it made a special finding concerning its jurisdiction, determining that the property involved and the rights to the possession and control thereof were in the district court of Oklahoma county, and directed its receivers to continue in the possession thereof. This decision was rendered on the 9th day of April, 1933. Three days later the district court of Pittsburg county, on application of the plaintiff therein, made an order directing the warden of the State Penitentiary to pay to the receiver appointed by it moneys due to S. J. Campbell and/or to the Gas Service Corporation for gas furnished to the State Penitentiary. On May 22, 1933, this original proceeding was commenced in this court for the purpose of preventing the district court and district judge of Pittsburg county, Okla., from exercising further jurisdiction in the case.

¶5 Plaintiffs contend that, as between courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction within the state, the court that first acquires jurisdiction in point of time by the commencement of an action and appointment of a receiver retains that jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and, further, that the situation here presented presents a sharp and intolerable conflict of jurisdiction between two courts involved, thereby rendering the remedy by prohibition a proper and appropriate remedy for the prevention of such conflict of jurisdiction between the two lower courts.

¶6 The respondent contends that this action should fail for the reason that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be resorted to when the ordinary and usual remedies provided by law are available, and that such usual and ordinary remedies are available and adequate in this case.

¶7 This contention is a reiteration of the rule of law long recognized by this court and the courts of last resort in other jurisdictions. Billings Hotel Co. v. City of Enid, 77 Okla. 122, 186 P. 1085; Morrison v. Brown, Judge, 26 Okla. 201, 109 P. 237. However, this court has recognized that prohibition is a proper and appropriate remedy to prevent two inferior courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction from asserting a conflicting control over the same subject-matter, thereby creating an intolerable conflict of jurisdiction. Parmenter v. Rowe, 87 Okla. 158, 200 P. 683; State ex rel. Monahawee v. Hazelwood, County Judge, 81 Okla. 69, 196 P. 937; Citizens' Trust Co. v. Bird, 162 Okla. 156, 19 P.2d 577. Of course, this court may, in the exercise of its discretion, deny the writ where the situation presented does not involve an intolerable conflict of jurisdiction between the two inferior courts. State ex rol. Bourne v. Johnson, 163 Okla. 212, 21 P.2d 1041.

¶8 Our decision on this point then depends upon the answer to this question: Does the situation presented in the case at bar involve an intolerable conflict of jurisdiction between two district courts which are undertaking to assert control over the same property and subject-matter through their respective receivers? A review of the facts previously set forth in this opinion convinces us that such a conflict exists here. The proper and necessary administration of the affairs of the going gas distribution concern through a receiver entitles the consumers purchasing gas from the concern, as well as those from whom the gas supply is being obtained by the company, to know with some degree of certainty which of the two receivers has lawful charge of the property and power and authority to administer its affairs. The hopeless confusion that must arise unless this conflict of jurisdiction is settled is too obvious to require further discussion. We must, therefore, hold that the jurisdiction of this court has been properly invoked by an application for a writ of prohibition, and that the situation involved reveals an intolerable conflict of jurisdiction between two of the district courts of this state. It remains for us to determine which of these two...