Young v. COOPERATIVE REFINERY ASSOCIATION, 7174.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7174.,7174. |
| Citation | 320 F.2d 485 |
| Parties | Edna YOUNG, Henry Stanley, Harvey Stanley, Lessie Williams, Dennis Stanley, Allie P. Stanley and Jasper Andrews, Appellants, v. COOPERATIVE REFINERY ASSOCIATION, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Thomas G. Smith, Purcell, Okl. (George Bingaman, Purcell, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.
Paul Brown, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Gordon F. Brown and Brown & Brown, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BREITENSTEIN, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.
This action seeking an injunction was filed by the plaintiff corporation which had entered into an agreement with several, but not all, of the cotenants owning a tract of land. This agreement provided that plaintiff could use an abandoned oil well on the premises for the disposal of salt water from other of its wells in the area. The other cotenants, that is with whom no agreement had been reached, objected to this use of the property and the plaintiff sought to enjoin them from preventing its injection of salt water. The complaint alleged diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy. The defendants' answer denied that the amount in controversy was sufficient.
After a trial on the merits, the trial court found it had jurisdiction by reason of diversity with the requisite amount in controversy, and then ordered that the defendants be permanently enjoined from excluding the plaintiff from the premises. The defendants have taken this appeal, advancing several points, among which are that the agreement between the plaintiff and several of the cotenants created an easement which is improper under the law of Oklahoma; that a tenant in common without the consent of all his cotenants cannot grant a lease which gives the lessee exclusive possession of any part of the land, and that the use of a well for salt water disposal is not a proper use of the property to be made by less than all of the cotenants.
The defendants assert also that the plaintiff failed to prove the jurisdictional amount, and this point will be first considered. This action was commenced in the United States District Court, and since plaintiff's allegation of jurisdictional amount was controverted, the burden of establishing the amount in controversy fell upon the plaintiff. It was so held in City of Lawton, Oklahoma, v. Chapman, 257 F.2d 601 (10th Cir.); McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L. Ed. 1135, and Buck v. Gallagher, 307 U.S. 95, 59 S.Ct. 740, 83 L.Ed. 1128. Hence the question presented on this point is whether or not the plaintiff has met this burden. The record shows that the witness for the plaintiff examined on this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtis v. Peerless Insurance Company
...cert. den. 382 U.S. 977, 86 S.Ct. 545, 15 L.Ed.2d 468 (1966); Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Beardsley, supra; Young v. Cooperative Refinery Ass'n, 320 F.2d 485 (10th Cir. 1963); Federated Mut. Imp. and Hardware Ins. Co. v. Steinheider, 268 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1959); Thomas v. Travelers Ins. C......
-
Baldridge v. McPike, Inc.
...1283 (1958). 3 McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). 4 Young v. Cooperative Refinery Ass'n, 320 F.2d 485 (10th Cir. 1963); City of Lawton, Okla. v. Chapman, 257 F.2d 601 (10th Cir. 1958). See also KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 2......