Yount-Lee Oil Co. v. Federal Crude Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 13 March 1936
• Docket Number: No. 2945.,2945.
• Citation: 92 S.W.2d 493
• Parties: YOUNT-LEE OIL CO. et al. v. FEDERAL CRUDE OIL CO. et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

92 S.W.2d 493

YOUNT-LEE OIL CO. et al. v. FEDERAL CRUDE OIL CO. et al.

No. 2945.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

March 13, 1936.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1936.

Writ of Prohibition from District Court, Jefferson County; R. L. Murray, Judge.

Original proceeding for writ of prohibition by Yount-Lee Oil Company and another against the Federal Crude Oil Company and others.

Writ of prohibition issued.

See, also, (Tex.Civ.App.) 82 S.W.(2d) 987.

Orgain, Carroll & Bell, Beeman Strong, and Steve M. King, all of Beaumont, for relators.

W. D. Gordon, E. E. Easterling, and Howth, Adams & Hart, all of Beaumont, for respondents.

COMBS, Justice.

This is an original proceeding for writ of prohibition.

Respondent Federal Crude Oil Company was appellant, and relators Yount-Lee Oil Company and B. E. Quinn were appellees, in the case of Federal Crude Oil Co. v. Yount-Lee Oil Co. et al., reviewed by this court and reported in 73 S.W.(2d) 969. That suit involved title to 13.8 acres of valuable producing oil land, being lots 5 and 7 of the Chisson-Hebert subdivision of the John Douthitt survey in Jefferson county. Yount-Lee Oil Company claimed title to lot 5, and B. E. Quinn claimed title to lot 7 by virtue of a deed from C. L. Rutt, receiver of the Federal Crude Oil Company, dated December 12, 1907, conveying both lots to J. F. Gilmartin, under whom Quinn and the Yount-Lee Oil Company deraigned title. Respondents in that case attacked the receiver's proceeding and contended that its title was not divested by the receiver's deed to Gilmartin. The relators in that case, in addition to relying upon their record title, pleaded that the judgment of this court in Yount et al. v. Fagin et al., 244 S.W. 1036, was res judicata of the question of validity of the Gilmartin deed. They also pleaded the judgment of the Federal District Court, affirmed in Fagin v. Quinn (C.C.A.) 24 F.(2d) 42, as res judicata of the same issue. The Yount-Lee Oil Company also pleaded limitation title to lot 5 claimed by it. This court affirmed the judgment of the trial court awarding title and possession of the land to Quinn and the Yount-Lee Oil Company. A writ of error against our judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Texas for want of jurisdiction, and application for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied, Federal Crude Oil Co. v. Yount-Lee Oil Co., 295 U.S. 741, 55 S.Ct. 655, 79 L.Ed. 1687.

Subsequently, respondent Federal Crude Oil Company, as plaintiff, filed suit in the Sixtieth district court of Jefferson county against relators, as defendants, in the nature of a bill of review to set aside the judgment; the suit being styled Federal Crude Oil Co. v. Yount-Lee Oil Co. et al. and numbered 30802-A on the docket of the court. That proceeding is pending in the district court.

In the case now before us the relators seek a writ of prohibition against the respondent Federal Crude Oil Company and its attorneys of record, and Honorable R. L. Murray, judge of the Sixtieth district court of Jefferson county, restraining them from proceeding to trial or further prosecuting the suit for review. A copy of the bill of review is attached to relators' application. The bill is grounded upon a charge of fraud in the procurement of the judgment affirmed by this court as above mentioned. The specific allegation is, in substance, that a material witness for the defendant gave perjured testimony in support of the issues of limitation, which were found in favor of the Yount-Lee Oil Company by the jury.

Respondents contend that this court is without jurisdiction to issue the writ of prohibition in this case. This contention is overruled. The affirmance of the judgment of the trial court made it the judgment of this court. The respondent Federal Crude Oil Company seeks, by means of a bill of review, to relitigate the issues determined against it in the suit, and ultimately to divest the rights secured to the relators by that judgment. It is elementary that the power of a court to determine by its judgment the rights of the litigants includes the power to protect the successful litigant in the enjoyment of the rights secured to him by the judgment. Hence, the prosecution of the suit for review would constitute an interference with the enforcement of the judgment of this court, which threatened invasion of its jurisdiction it has power by writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ to restrain. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Village Mills Co., 123 Tex. 253, 71 S.W.(2d) 1087, 1089; Halbrook v. Quinn (Tex.Civ.App.) 286 S. W. 954; Texas National Bank v. Zellers (Tex.Civ.App.) 75 S.W.(2d) 890, and cases cited. As said by Justice Harvey, speaking for the Commission of Appeals in Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Village Mills Co., supra: "The affirmance of the trial court's judgment in the McCarthy Case [Houston Oil Co. v. McCarthy (Tex.Com. App.) 245 S.W. 651] had effect to make that judgment the judgment of this court. Where rights are established by a judgment of this court, the court has undoubted power to secure, by any proper writ necessary to the end, the enjoyment of the rights so established. Where a suit is brought in an inferior court, by any of the parties or privies to such judgment, against those in favor of whom the judgment was rendered, or their privies, and the suit directly involves the relitigation of rights established by the judgment, and is of such nature that, if successfully prosecuted, will result in a judgment which will purport the divesting of those rights, the prosecution of such suit will be prohibited as being an...