Sutton v. Richardson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Sutton v. Richardson

1943 OK 93, 137 P.2d 948, 192 Okla. 563, 1943 Okla. LEXIS 238

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 9, 1943

DocketNo. 29498.

StatusPublished

This text of 1943 OK 93 (Sutton v. Richardson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sutton v. Richardson, 1943 OK 93, 137 P.2d 948, 192 Okla. 563, 1943 Okla. LEXIS 238 (Okla. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

OSBORN, J.

This is a separate appeal by W. W. Sutton from the order appealed from in cause No. 29506, Sinopoulo et al. v. Portman et al., 192 Okla. 558, 137 P. 2d 943, this day decided. The appellant is the assignee of an oil payment contract procured from one A. E. Hawkins, who had procured said oil payment contract from Hollenback, the owner of the oil and gas lease.

An examination of the record herein discloses no facts which distinguish this case from the case of Sinopoulo v. Port- *564 man, and our opinion in that case is determinative of the issues presented herein.

There is one matter, however, which we deem of sufficient importance to notice. The record does not disclose whether Hawkins, from whom plaintiff in error acquired his interest, obtained his assignment before or after Hollen-back began operations for drilling the well. It may be that labor and material had then been furnished out of which some of the laborers’ and materialmen’s lien claims arose. If so, said fact must be given consideration in the final adjustment of the rights and equities of the parties, when it must be determined whether this interest is primarily or secondarily liable for expense incurred by the receiver.

The cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.

BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, DAVI-SON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, J., dissent.

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

OSBORN, J.

This is a separate appeal by W. W. Sutton from the order appealed from in cause No. 29506, Sinopoulo et al. v. Portman et al., 192 Okla. 558, 137 P. 2d 943, this day decided. The appellant is the assignee of an oil payment contract procured from one A. E. Hawkins, who had procured said oil payment contract from Hollenback, the owner of the oil and gas lease.

An examination of the record herein discloses no facts which distinguish this case from the case of Sinopoulo v. Port- *564 man, and our opinion in that case is determinative of the issues presented herein.

There is one matter, however, which we deem of sufficient importance to notice. The record does not disclose whether Hawkins, from whom plaintiff in error acquired his interest, obtained his assignment before or after Hollen-back began operations for drilling the well. It may be that labor and material had then been furnished out of which some of the laborers’ and materialmen’s lien claims arose. If so, said fact must be given consideration in the final adjustment of the rights and equities of the parties, when it must be determined whether this interest is primarily or secondarily liable for expense incurred by the receiver.

The cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.

BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, DAVI-SON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1943 OK 93, 137 P.2d 948, 192 Okla. 563, 1943 Okla. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-richardson-okla-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack