Wood v. CITRONELLE-MOBILE GATHERING SYSTEM COMPANY, 22813.

• Decision Date: 17 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 22813.,22813.
• Parties: A. E. WOOD, Appellant, v. CITRONELLE-MOBILE GATHERING SYSTEM COMPANY, Ltd., et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

362 F.2d 354 (1966)

A. E. WOOD, Appellant, v. CITRONELLE-MOBILE GATHERING SYSTEM COMPANY, Ltd., et al., Appellees.

No. 22813.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 17, 1966.

J. Edward Thornton, Mobile, Ala., for appellant, Thornton & McGowin, Mobile, Ala., of counsel.

Sam W. Pipes, III, Irwin W. Coleman, Jr., Raymond A. Corcoran, Mobile, Ala., for appellees, Lyons, Pipes & Cook, Mobile, Ala., of counsel.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, BELL, Circuit Judge, and KILKENNY, District Judge.^*

TUTTLE, Chief Judge:

The plaintiff in the trial court here appeals from a dismissal of his complaint by an order in the following terms:

"It appearing to the court that the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, has jurisdiction over this matter and, therefore, the case is hereby dismissed and costs are taxed against the plaintiff."

The question before this court, therefore, is merely whether the trial court erred in ordering a dismissal on the grounds stated. If such a course of action was error, then the proper course is for us to reverse in order that the trial court may then pass on all of the other motions and contentions of the parties rather than for us to ascertain on the record before us what the ultimate rights of the parties may be.

The complaint which was dismissed was very short. It alleged the necessary jurisdictional facts as to residence, the plaintiff being a citizen of the state of Mississippi, and the defendant being a resident of the state of Alabama. It alleged that the matter in controversy exceeded, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $10,000. It then contained two counts claiming the value or proceeds of oil taken from land owned by Wood and sold by defendant. The first count, contained in paragraph two, alleged that, "Beginning on or about the 1st day of January, 1963, and continuing through the 31st day of January, 1965, defendants converted to their own use crude oil of the value of, to-wit, 1,000 Dollars, the property of the plaintiff, for which plaintiff demands judgment together with punitive damages in the sum of $100,000."

The second count, contained in paragraph three, alleged that defendant owed plaintiff the sum of $1,000 for money had and received from the first day of January 1963 through the 31st day of January, 1965, and then alleged, "because the refusal of defendants to pay plaintiff is wilful, intentional, wrongful and malicious," plaintiff demanded punitive damages in the sum of $100,000.

The plaintiff immediately filed interrogatories and also filed a request for admissions. Defendants responded by filing objections to interrogatories and objections to request for admissions, and also filed a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because the amount actually in controversy was less than $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and finally on the ground that another action was alleged to be pending between the same parties and involving the same matters at the time the suit was filed.

This defensive pleading included, as an exhibit, a copy of the pending matter in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, the same being a bill of interpleader. This bill of interpleader asserted that Citronelle-Mobile Gathering System Company, Ltd., was a limited partnership. It named as defendants 46 different persons, it being explained on oral argument that the defendants thus named were all the persons in the chain of title under which appellant Wood claims ownership from the original grant to date. It alleged in effect that the land as to which Wood claims ownership had been force integrated as a drilling unit in the Citronelle oil field in the state of Alabama, and that a producing well had been brought in on the unit. It thus alleged that Citronelle was producing oil, a part of the proceeds from which belonged to the true owner of this tract of land. It alleged that Wood had sued in conversion and for money had and received, and had recovered a judgment in the amount of $446.49, representing oil runs up to October, 1962, with interest of $11.95. It alleged that in addition to said sum the complainant had the sum of $658.45, "which said sum is the full amount due to the owners of the oil allocable to the lands described * * * from the date of the first runs up through the 1st day of May, 1964." It paid into the court the said sum and prayed that it be allowed to pay into the registry of the court each month the amount of money, if any allocable to the parcel of land described for oil produced by the unit of which said lands are a part.

In the interpleader action the complainant alleged, "that the respondents claim or may claim some right, title or interest in or to said minerals, or some line or encumbrance thereon." It also alleged, "that it has heretofore been subjected to a suit at law by one of the respondents, to wit, A. E. Wood, claiming monies of the defendant for oil produced and allocable to the land herein described for the period up to October 7, 1961; that the complainant is threatened with other and additional lawsuits for oil produced after October 7, 1961, and will be threatened with said suits in the future." The bill of interpleader made no more specific allegation as to any claim asserted by any person other than A. E. Wood than has just been described.

In the bill of interpleader it was asserted that A. E. Wood was a...