Strickland v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1943
• Docket Number: 35235.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: STRICKLAND et al. v. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. et al.

11 So.2d 820

194 Miss. 194

STRICKLAND et al. v. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. et al.

No. 35235.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 8, 1943

W T. Weir, of Philadelphia, for appellants.

Heidelberg & Roberts, of Hattiesburg, and Vinson, Elkin, Weems &amp Francis, of Houston, Tex., for appellees.

ROBERDS Justice.

This appeal is from a decree dismissing an attachment in chancery against the Humble Oil & Refining Company as a non-resident corporate debtor of appellants.

Appellants some one hundred and twenty-five in number, as complainants in this bill, claim that said Oil Company is indebted to them in a large sum of money resulting from the production and appropriation by the Oil Company of large quantities of oil and gas from 1,476 acres of land owned by appellants. The bill did not give the situs of the lands but it is agreed they are located in Montgomery County, Texas. The bill seeks to attach certain mineral leasehold rights of said Oil Company in Mississippi and also joins as garnishee defendants certain residents of Mississippi alleged in the bill to be indebted to said non-resident Oil Company.

Complainants traced their claim to said lands through one Wilson Strickland, a patentee thereof. Another group of individuals about the same number as complainants, filed in this cause a plea of intervention, asserting that they are in fact the only heirs of said Strickland.

The resident defendants all answered the bill, denying that they owe or have in their possession or under their control any property or effects of said non-resident defendant, asserting further they know of no other person who is indebted to or who has effects or property of said non-resident defendant. No denial was made to or issue joined on these answers.

The Humble Oil & Refining Company filed a motion to dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, to adjudicate effectively the issues and rights of all parties involved in this proceeding. In support of the motion it recites that the movent is a corporation chartered and organized under the laws of the State of Texas and domiciled at Houston in said State; that it is the real true owner of said lands and has been in the exclusive possession and control thereof for a number of years, paying taxes thereon; that it has drilled wells and produced oil and gas therefrom, and that it has expended many hundreds of thousands of dollars in acquiring and developing and paying taxes on said lands, all under a good faith claim of ownership; that complainants have never been in possession, actual or constructive, of any of said lands; that the foundation of the rights of the appellants is the claim of ownership of these lands and that this suit is to establish that ownership and cancel and remove the claim of said Oil Company thereto; that this suit under the law of Texas must be filed in the county where the lands are located; that in addition it would be impossible for the Chancery Court of Harrison County to try this cause; that there are six distinct groups of individuals, comprising several hundred people, claiming to be owners of the lands; that since the lands were patented they have been divided up into many tracts and blocks and that there are over two thousand conveyances affecting the titles; that these records cannot be brought to Mississippi; that there have been numerous suits and much litigation affecting the title to these lands in various state and federal courts in the State of Texas, and that the court papers and minutes of these various court proceedings must be used in evidence in this cause to properly determine the rights of the parties hereto; that these court papers and minutes cannot be brought to Mississippi; that to procure certified copies of all of the conveyances and of all the court papers, records and minutes bearing upon the title to said lands would impose an expense of many thousands of dollars; that said Oil Company not only claims ownership of the lands by record title but also by adverse possession, which fact must be proved, as to the various tracts, by many witnesses living in the State of Texas and proximate to said land, who cannot be forced to come to the State of Mississippi, and the taking of the depositions of these witnesses would impose unbearable expense and trouble; that the effect of the various court proceedings and the judgments and decrees which have been rendered therein in the State of Texas, and the meaning and legal effect of the various conveyances affecting said lands, and the rights conferred by adverse possession, must all be determined by the laws of Texas; that enormous labor and trouble would be required to properly prepare and present a full answer to this bill and present the various issues necessarily involved in this litigation; that, therefore, it would be impracticable and impossible and an unfair and an unjust burden upon said nonresident defendant for the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, to assume jurisdiction and try this cause. Affidavit was duly made to the recitals of fact in this motion, and there is no denial thereto. In fact, there is a stipulation between the parties in the record in which it is agreed that practically all of the foregoing statements are true.

The Chancellor sustained the motion and declined to take jurisdiction and try this cause.

Appellee says the Chancellor was...