Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 25 October 1907 |
| Citation | 105 S.W. 851 |
| Parties | WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Travis County; V. L. Brooks, Judge.
Action by the state of Texas against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company for the appointment of a receiver. From an order appointing a receiver, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See 103 S. W. 836.
Clark & Bolinger, Cochran & Penn, D. W. Odell, and N. A. Stedman, for appellant. R. V. Davidson, Atty. Gen., Jewell P. Lightfoot, Asst. Atty. Gen., John W. Brady, Co. Atty., Gregory & Batts, and Allen & Hart, for the State.
This is an appeal by the appellant from an order entered by the trial court appointing a receiver for the properties of the appellant company situated within the state of Texas. The history of the proceeding and the subject-matter of controversy and the result reached by the trial court is fully explained and set out in the opinion of this court handed down in this case on June 28, 1907. There is also set out in that opinion the act of the Legislature of April 11, 1907, which we there construed and held to authorize the course pursued by the trial court, which is objected to in the appeal we are now considering. It is unnecessary for us to recapitulate what was stated in the opinion referred to. We there, in effect, held that the act of the Legislature referred to was constitutional, which ruling, after further consideration, we adhere to. The act in question clearly authorized the procedure pursued by the trial court, and the spirit, meaning, and purpose of the act authorized the court, upon dissolution of the permit to do business within this state of the appellant's company at the instance of the suit by the state, to appoint a receiver for its properties within its jurisdiction. The reason for this conclusion we undertook to state in the opinion referred to, which agrees with the conclusion of the trial judge, as stated in the bill of exception which is a part of the record in this case.
Independent of the power conferred by the act of the Legislature reviewed, we are of the opinion that the court had the authority to appoint a receiver by virtue of subdivision 3 of article 1465, Sayles' Civ. St. 1897. That subdivision is to the effect that a receiver may be appointed where a corporation is dissolved, or is insolvent, or in imminent danger of insolvency, or has forfeited its corporate rights. The corporate right of the appellant company to do business within this state was by virtue of a permit that had been granted to it by the state, and, when an action is brought by the state to cancel and dissolve that permit, it is a proceeding which in our opinion comes within, if not the exact letter, the spirit and meaning of that part of the subdivision of the statute which relates to the forfeiture of the corporate rights of the corporation.
It is contended by the appellant that in the appointment of the receiver the trial court proceeded without pleading and evidence. The record and proceedings brought to this court by the appellant for our review contains no statement of facts, but there is a bill of exception which was approved by the court, in which it is stated that the court, in passing upon the question of the appointment of the receiver, took judicial notice of the facts exhibited in the main case upon which the receivership is predicated, and of the judgment and decree rendered in that case, wherein it appears from the record in this case the judgment against the appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. McCloskey
...57, 21 S. W. 782; Sweetzer v. Claflin, 82 Tex. 513, 17 S. W. 769; Boyd v. Beville, 91 Tex. 439, 44 S. W. 287; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 105 S. W. 851; Holland v. Preston (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 374; Edrington v. Pridham, 65 Tex. 616; New Britain Mach. Co. et a......
-
Skirvin v. Coyle
...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 (Mass.) 197 N. E. 521; Bilby v. Morton, 119 Okla......
-
United North & South Oil Co. v. Meredith
...and pending the appeal, as existed before judgment and pending the trial. This exact question was involved in Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 105 S. W. 851 (writ of error refused), wherein an order had been made appointing a receiver of the property of the oil company......
-
Ex Parte Walsh
...corporations, and does not attempt to exempt any. Our anti-trust law with similar provisions has been upheld. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 105 S. W. 851; Id., 106 S. W. 918; Id., 212 U. S. 86, 29 Sup. Ct. 220, 53 L. Ed. 417; Palmer v. State, 212 U. S. 118, 29 Sup. ......
-
Standard Oil and Microsoft—Intriguing Parallels or Limping Analogies?
...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 andmemberofthe Standard Oil Tru......