Keystone Pipe & Supply Co. v. Zweifel

94 S.W.2d 412, 127 Tex. 392, 1936 Tex. LEXIS 340
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMay 27, 1936
DocketNo. 6536.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 94 S.W.2d 412 (Keystone Pipe & Supply Co. v. Zweifel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keystone Pipe & Supply Co. v. Zweifel, 94 S.W.2d 412, 127 Tex. 392, 1936 Tex. LEXIS 340 (Tex. 1936).

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Judge RYAN

delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section B.

About April, 1927,. the Hofmeier-Healy Drilling Company, a partnership, engaged in the business of drilling wells under contract, became financially involved. An arrangement with *394 creditors resulted in the appointment of Henry Zweifel, as trustee, to take over and assume control of the drilling company’s properties and carry out the completion of certain wells then under contract.

Previously thereto, the Keystone Pipe & Supply Company had furnished to the drilling company a large amount of oil well casing and tools under the regular rental contract of the Keystone, which retained title until payment might be made therefor.

Zweifel entered upon his duties, as trustee, and used portions of the Keystone’s casing in carrying on the various projects over which he had assumed control.

One of these projects had been sublet to Mike Huber, for which Hofmeier-Healy Company had collected certain moneys and instead of applying to the payment of Huber, used the same themselves. Zweifel settled this claim by turning over to Huber certain pipe, property of the Keystone.

Zweifel was also receiver for the Vitek Oil Company, appointed by the district court of Tarrant County. As trustee of the Hofmeier-Healy Drilling Company, Zweifel loaned certain casing to himself as receiver for Vitek. He testified: — “It was originally a loan from one operation to the other but it finally — I made the loan, and it finally stayed in the well and became the property of the Vitek Company.” This met the acquiescence of the Keystone, which credited under date, May 14, 1928, the Hofmeier-Healy Company with 95 joints of casing $1452.88, the credit memorandum therefor containing the notations “Mdse, returned. Transferred by Zweifel to Vitek Lease”. On the same date the Keystone, charged Zweifel as Receiver for Vitek with the same 95 joints of casing $1646.59, the statement therefor containing the notations “Sold to Henry Zweifel, Receiver, Paul Vitek. Removed by you from Hofmeier-Healy Drilling Company property during December 1927.”

After several interviews between the president of the Keystone and Zweifel looking to the recovery of the casing owned by the Keystone which had been turned over to Hofmeier-Healy, under date, April 10, 1928, Zweifel placed in writing a letter authorizing the Keystone to take possession of all pipe that was not being used and agreeing to replace the pipe that he had disposed of for Hofmeier-Healy, and also to replace the pipe he was then using in the Parks well which he, after the trusteeship had begun, had contracted to drill, and *395 in which he was then using pipe of the Keystone; said letter follows:

“Fort Worth, Texas,
April 10, 1928.
“Keystone Pipe & Supply Co.
“Fort Worth, Texas.
Att'n: Mr. Horwitz.
“Dear Sir:
“With reference to our verbal conversation concerning the pipe and casing sold to Hofmeier-Healy Drilling Company by Keystone Pipe & Supply Company before the Hofmeier-Healy Drilling Company made an assignment to myself as Trustee for the benefit of the creditors, and which pipe has been left in my possession, upon which you hold a purchase-money lien for the payment of your debt, you are advised that you may at once take possession of (here follows an itemization of 608 joints of pipe of various sizes. It is admitted that these were returned to and repossessed by the Keystone).
“With reference to the 300 feet of lS^-inch casing and 750 feet of 12i/£-inch casing, which was used by myself as Trustee for the Hofmeier-Healy Drilling Company in making settlement with Mike Huber et al., upon a contract made by Hofmeier-Healy Drilling Company in Culberson County, Texas, you are advised that this pipe will be replaced as far as possible by all of the casing now in my possession upon which you do not hold a mortgage, to wit: 80 joints of 10-inch casing and 7 joints of 20-inch casing.
“With reference to the 12 joints of 15*4-inch casing, the 42 joints of 12^-inch casing and the 80 joints of 10-inch free of lien casing, now being used by me in the drilling of the well on the Roy Parks ranch, you are advised that as soon as this well is completed, the above casing will be pulled and placed in the railroad yards at Odessa, Texas, at your disposal.”

Under date, April 27, 1928, Zweifel, in reply to communication of the Keystone dated April 12, 1928, advised the latter as follows:

“Gentlemen:

“Replying to your letter of April 12, 1928, with reference to the use of the trucks and men for the moving to the nearest railroad point certain casing now in my possession as Trustee of the estate of Hofmeier-Healy Drilling Company in Assignment, you are advised that after due consideration I feel that it would be extremely unfair to the remainder of the creditors, especially the unsecured creditors, for me to *396 agree with you that the estate is to repay to you such expense as you may finance the trusteeship in the moving of this casing under your direction for the reasons:

“First: That we, under our disorganized condition, can expect no more than a half a day’s work for one day’s pay from the men; and, Second, I have spent more than Seven Thousand Dollars pulling the secured property out of the holes where it had been run before I took charge of the properties; therefore, I must reject your proposition as stated in your letter; but I do feel that you are entitled to rental for the remaining pipe being used in the Parks well in Midland County and that the property of the remaining creditors’ portion of the estate should be used for the payment of this rental to you; however, if you are unwilling to permit the use of this pipe free of all rental for the purpose of attempting along with the other creditors to secure a producing well from which all creditors might be paid, then it must be considered that the mount of rental due you would be in the neighborhood of $1,000.00 and I am willing to repay to you out of the estate for the expense, as you might be out for the moving of this pipe to not exceed $1,000.00; which $1,000.00 if you insist, will be treated as a trustee expense but not to be paid until the estate is closed up or until it is in such financial condition as enable this t; be paid from the money in the hands of the trustee.

“Weekly statement will be rendered to you for the amount of the men’s salary, cost of gasoline, oil, etc., for the moving of your casing, and you are to furnish the money with which to meet this expense as the statements are rendered.”

Afterwards, it seems, additional pipe was delivered to the Keystone.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Duval County Ranch Co. v. Alamo Lumber Co.
597 S.W.2d 528 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Denta Rama, Inc. v. Lavastone Industries of Central Texas, Inc.
597 S.W.2d 507 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Warrior Constructors, Inc. v. Small Business Investment Co. of Houston
536 S.W.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1976)
H. B. Zachry Co. v. Ceco Steel Products Corp.
404 S.W.2d 113 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Dale Truck Line, Inc. v. R. & M. Well Servicing & Drilling Co.
286 S.W.2d 446 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Texas Co. v. State & Duval County Ranch Co.
281 S.W.2d 83 (Texas Supreme Court, 1955)
Shosid v. Hughes Tool Co.
258 S.W.2d 945 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Ingham v. Harrison
224 S.W.2d 1019 (Texas Supreme Court, 1949)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Johnson
155 F.2d 185 (Fifth Circuit, 1946)
Saulsbury Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
142 F.2d 27 (Tenth Circuit, 1944)
Bowie Sewerage Co. v. Chandler
138 S.W.2d 585 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 S.W.2d 412, 127 Tex. 392, 1936 Tex. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keystone-pipe-supply-co-v-zweifel-tex-1936.