State v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
Decision Date | 15 December 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 4-8344.,4-8344. |
Citation | 206 S.W.2d 771 |
Parties | STATE v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Second Division, Pulaski County; Lawrence C. Auten, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of the Attorney General, against Phillips Petroleum Company to recover forgotten or lost or other outstanding public interests or property to which the State might have or claim title. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, the State appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Guy E. Williams, Atty. Gen., and John E. Coates, Jr., of Little Rock, for appellant.
Armistead, Rector & Armistead, of Little Rock, for appellee.
This appeal necessitates a research into the common law doctrine of bona vacantia — that is, "vacant goods" or "unclaimed property" or "personal property without an owner."1
The State of Arkansas, on the relation of the Attorney General, filed a complaint in the Pulaski Circuit Court against the Phillips Petroleum Company, which complaint — omitting caption and signature — reads as follows:
Attached to the complaint were interrogatories which — omitting affidavit — read as follows:
The circuit court sustained the defendant's demurrer, and when the plaintiff elected to stand on the complaint, a final judgment was entered dismissing the complaint. From that judgment there is this appeal; and the State seeks to reverse the judgment by reliance on (1) Section 11981, Pope's Digest, and (2) the common law doctrine of bona vacantia. We consider these contentions.
I. Section 11981, Pope's Digest. This is a part of Act 194 of 1915, and the portion germane to this cause reads: "It shall be the duty of the Attorney General, * * * to institute suit in the name of the State to recover any forgotten or lost or other outstanding public interest or property * * *." This language merely empowers the Attorney General to institute a suit, and has no bearing on the question of whether the complaint in this case states a case of action.
II. Bona Vacantia. The gist of the complaint is, that the defendant holds — and has held for more than seven years — unclaimed, abandoned and forgotten money belonging to unnamed persons; that this money belongs to the State as bona vacantia; and that the defendant refuses to disclose the names of the persons "wholly unknown to plaintiff",2 to whom such money formerly belonged. The prayer is, that the defendant be required to deposit the money in the registry of the court and answer the interrogatories, so that the State may proceed to obtain the money. Does this complaint state a cause of action under the Common Law doctrine of bona vacantia?
A. The Arkansas Statutes. Chapter 58, Pope's Digest, is entitled "Escheats." See Sections 5087 et seq., Pope's Digest. This chapter, in prescribing the method by which the State may receive personal property, is based entirely on the assumption that there must have been a previous administration of the estate of a known decedent. That condition does not exist under the allegations in the complaint in the case at bar, so this statutory proceeding has no application to this case. After analyzing our escheat statutes, appellant concedes that they do not cover such a situation as is here presented, saying:
B. The Common Law. At common law, escheat referred to real estate which reverted to the crown in the absence of heirs; and bona vacantia referred to personal property. 19 Am.Juris. 380. In modern American decisions the distinction between the State taking personal property by bona vacantia, and real property by escheat, has been largely disregarded, and many cases3 refer to the State's taking of personal property as being "by escheat." But in the case at bar it is important that we keep in mind the distinction between escheat and bona vacantia; because the State — to prevail in this case — must establish that at common law, the doctrine of bona vacantia applies to a situation similar to the one alleged in the present complaint.
Section 1679, Pope's Digest, is Chapter 28, Section 1 of the Revised Statutes of 1838, and reads: "The common law of England, so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and all statutes of the British Parliament in aid of or to supply the defect of the common law made prior to the fourth year of James the First (that are applicable to our own form of government), of a general nature and not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or the Constitution and laws of this State, shall be the rule of decision in this State unless altered or repealed by the General Assembly of this State."
Did the common-law doctrine of bona vacantia apply to a situation such as is here presented? In ascertaining the common law, we not only look to our own cases, but we revert to the early English cases, and the early writers on the common law, such as Blackstone, Kent and Bracton. Cases from other American states are also persuasive as to what was the common law. See 12 C.J., § 30, page 198 et seq. (15 C.J.S., Common Law, § 21.)
The most exhaustive modern case which we have found on bona vacantia is that of Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Slattery, 7 Cir., 102 F.2d 58, 68. In that case the telephone company had been ordered by the regulatory body of Illinois to make overcharge refunds to subscribers. After several years of attempted refunds, there still remained many unclaimed refunds in the possession of the telephone company, and the State of Illinois sought to capture all these...
To continue reading
Request your trial