Willard Oil Co. v. Riley
| Decision Date | 21 March 1911 |
| Citation | 115 P. 1103,29 Okla. 19,1911 OK 120 |
| Parties | WILLARD OIL CO. v. RILEY et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where from a consideration of the claims made by the parties on an application for appointment of a receiver, pendente lite, the same is made, and on appeal, plaintiffs' interest in the property or fund appearing probable, and no abuse of discretion shown, and there being evidence and circumstances reasonably tending to sustain the order, the same will not be disturbed.
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff).
The word "probable" does not mean free from doubt, but carries with it the idea that the contingency is more likely to happen than otherwise. It is said to be synonymous with the word "likely." Webster's definition is "Having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt; likely."
Error from District Court, Rogers County; T. L. Brown, Judge.
Action by Joseph Riley and the United Oil Company against the Willard Oil Company. From an order appointing a receiver for the defendant, it brings error. Affirmed.
W. H Kornegay, for plaintiff in error.
George S. Ramsey, Seymour Riddle, Charles B. Rogers, Wm. P. Thompson, and C. L. Thomas, for defendants in error.
This case presents an appeal from an order of the district court of Rogers county appointing a receiver on the prayer of appellees, and defendants in error, of the appellant and plaintiff in error, the Willard Oil Company. The statute under which the receiver was appointed is section 5772, Comp. Laws of Oklahoma of 1909, and the portion pertinent to our investigation reads as follows: "A receiver may be appointed by the Supreme Court, the district court, or any judge of either, or in the absence of said judges from the county, by the probate judge: First, in an action by a vendor to vacate a fraudulent purchase of property, or by a creditor to subject any property or fund to his claim, or between partners or others jointly owning or interested in any property or fund, on the application of the plaintiff, or of any party whose right to or interest in the property or fund, or the proceeds therefore, is probable, and where it is shown that the property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured."
Under the order made the receiver was required to permit the Willard Oil Company to continue its operations on the lands involved as it had been, using the same storage tanks that it had been using, the receiver receiving and accounting for the money and funds received, to the end that they would be conserved and not wasted and held available for the part shown to be entitled thereto at the conclusion of the litigation; also to audit, allow, and pay all necessary expenses in operating the property. It is contended, on the part of defendant, that the court erred in the appointment of a receiver, as the interest in the property or fund or proceeds thereof of the plaintiffs was not probable, and that it had not been shown that the property or fund was in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured. The evidence offered at the time of the hearing of the application was on the part of both parties made up of affidavits and oral testimony. There was a direct conflict in the same; but after a perusal thereof and a careful consideration of the statements of the parties pro and con, and, in addition thereto, giving to the conclusion of the trial court that weight to which under the circumstances we regard it entitled, we are not prepared to say there was lacking evidence reasonably tending to sustain it, or that there was an abuse of its discretion in the appointment made. Had this been an ordinary action involving matters of common note in which men generally are versed, and had the evidence submitted been altogether in the nature of affidavits, the conclusion of the trial court upon the conflicting evidence would be entitled to less weight than under the circumstances we are inclined to give it. Joseph Riley, one of the plaintiffs, claims to have an interest in the lands out of which the controversy grows, which he claims is in danger of being lost or materially injured. The Willard Oil Company had possession of these lands and is engaged in drilling wells thereon and pumping oil therefrom. This oil is then stored, or sold to the pipe line company or companies operating in that field. It is made to appear that the lands surrounding the land involved likewise have oil wells upon them, and that by the operation thereof they will drain the oil from beneath the surface of plaintiff's land; that in order to protect this land, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial