Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State
Decision Date | 28 June 1907 |
Citation | 103 S.W. 836 |
Parties | WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Travis County; V. L. Brooks, Judge.
Suit by the state of Texas against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company.Defendant having appealed from orders, decrees, and judgments for plaintiff, plaintiff applies for relief against a receiver appointed by the United States Circuit Court and other orders protecting jurisdiction acquired by the appeal.
N. A. Stedman and Cochran & Penn, for appellant.R. V. Davidson, Atty. Gen., W. E. Hawkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jewell P. Lightfoot, Asst. Atty. Gen., John W. Brady, Co. Atty., G. W. Allen, and Gregory & Batts, for appellee.
On June 21, 1907, the state of Texas, a party to the above-styled cause, through and by its Attorney General and the county attorney of Travis county, and Robert J. Eckhardt, receiver of the property of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, presented to this court an application on behalf of the state and the receiver, stating substantially that on the 22d day of September, 1906, the state instituted in the district court of Travis county, Tex., a suit against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri, and exercising and carrying on its business in this state under a permit so to do.The purpose and object of the suit was to recover of the oil company penalties and to cancel its permit to do business in the state on account of violation of certain provisions of the anti-trust laws of this state.That the case, upon issues joined, came on for trial on the 20th day of May, 1907, and terminated on June 1, 1907, with a verdict and judgment in favor of the state against the defendant for the sum of $1,623,900, and canceling the permit of the defendant to carry on and conduct its business within this state.That on the 1st day of June, 1907, after the return of the verdict and the entry of the judgment, the state presented to the judge of the court where the case was pending an application for the appointment of a receiver of the property and assets and business of the defendant corporation within the state of Texas, which application was set down for hearing on the 8th day of June, 1907.In that application the state also requested an injunction restraining the defendant from removing any of its property from the limits of the state of Texas; and also stating in the application that the state, by virtue of a recent act of the Legislature, had a lien upon all of the properties and assets of the defendant company for the satisfaction of the judgment that the court had rendered.At the same time, the court, upon application therefor, issued a temporary restraining order to the effect prohibiting the defendant, its agents, officers, and attorneys, from removing beyond the state any of the assets of the defendant corporation, which order, by subsequent decree, was kept alive and was not superseded by the appeal.Upon this application for receiver and injunction, etc., notice was issued and served on the defendant on the 1st day of June, 1907.The matter coming on for hearing on the 8th day of June, the court passed the same until the 10th day of June, when upon that day he announced that he would appoint a receiver, as requested, but would for 48 hours defer naming the person to be so appointed, in order to give the parties, through their respective counsel, opportunity to make any objections they so desired to Robert J. Eckhardt; otherwise, at the end of that time, Eckhardt would be appointed.Thereafter, on the 13th day of June, 1907, no objections being made, the court entered an order confirming the order of June 10th, providing for the appointment of a receiver, and named and appointed Eckhardt receiver of all of the property and assets of the defendantWaters-Pierce Oil Company within this state, or that may thereafter come within the state; and further provided that the temporary injunction previously granted should continue in force.On June 15th, the court, by amended order, specifically and more largely defined the duties of the receiver, but in no wise affected his power and authority to take possession of the property of the defendant company.
The amended order is as follows:
The bond of the receiver was fixed at $250, 000, and on the 19th day of June, 1907, at 10 o'clock a. m., the bond, with proper sureties, was approved and filed, and the said Eckhardt at the same time accepted and qualified as receiver.The court in said cause on the 15th day of June, 1907, made and entered an order fixing the sum of $100,000 as the amount of bond which the Waters-Pierce Oil Company was required to give in order to perfect an appeal from the order appointing a receiver.On the 19th day of June, 1907, at 10 o'clock a. m., the Waters-Pierce Oil Company perfected its appeal from the order appointing a receiver under a bond approved by the court.On the 15th day of June, 1907, a motion for a new trial previously filed by the Waters-Pierce Oil Company was by the court overruled, and in open court notice of appeal was given to the Court of Civil Appeals, which notice was entered in the minutes of the court.Thereupon, in the main case, the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, defendant, executed a supersedeas appeal bond from the judgment for penalties and cancellation of permit, which bond was in due form and was properly approved by the clerk of the court.That on the 19th day of June, 1907, after all of the above-mentioned proceedings were had, there was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas, on behalf of one Bradley W. Palmer, who claims to be a stockholder in the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, a...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Cleveland v. Ward
...40 L. R. A. 203; Riesner v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 89 Tex. 656, 36 S. W. 53, 33 L. R. A. 171, 59 Am. St. Rep. 84; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 162, 103 S. W. 836; Arthur v. Batte, 42 Tex. 159; Burdett v. State, 9 Tex. 43, 44; Goggan & Bros. v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 163......
-
Way v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
...44 S. W. 814; Riesner v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 89 Tex. 656, 33 L. R. A. 171, 59 Am. St. Rep. 84, 36 S. W. 53; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 162, 103 S. W. 836; Arthur v. Batte, 42 Tex. 159; Burdett v. State, 9 Tex. 43, 44; Goggan & Bros. v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S.......
-
Maverick County Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. City of Laredo
...for this decision. See Riesner v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 89 Tex. 656, 36 S.W. 53, 33 L.R.A. 171; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State of Texas, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 162, 103 S.W. 836; Baylor University v. Chester Savings Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 738, 744. In the present case, the court separat......
-
Skirvin v. Coyle
...strictly accounting for all value, property, and effects possessed by it at the time of its untimely demise. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 162, 103 S. W. 836, 105 S. W. 851; Id., 107 Tex. 1, 106 S. W. 326; Palmer et al. v. Texas et al.. 212 11. S. 118; Baker v. Allen (Ma......
-
Standard Oil and Microsoft—Intriguing Parallels or Limping Analogies?
...v. Buckeye Pipe-Line Co., 61 Ohio St.520,56N.E. 464 (1900).48 See Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 44 S.W. 936 (Tex. Ct. App.1898); 103 S.W. 836 (Tex. Ct. App. 1907); 105 S.W. 851 (Tex. Ct. App.1907); 106 S.W. 918 (Tex. Ct. App. 1908) (action excluding Waters-Pierce, aMissouri corporation an......