Wagoner Oil & Gas Co. v. Goad

1929 OK 149, 275 P. 1036, 136 Okla. 29, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 123
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 26, 1929
Docket19663
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 1929 OK 149 (Wagoner Oil & Gas Co. v. Goad) 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
Wagoner Oil & Gas Co. v. Goad, 1929 OK 149, 275 P. 1036, 136 Okla. 29, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 123 (Okla. 1929).

Opinion

ANDREWS, J.

J. P. Marlow and Ellen Marlow instituted suit against the Wagoner Oil & Gas Company, a common-law trust, and caused a receiver to be appointed of the property of the trust. An appeal was taken to this court involving, among other things, the authority of the court to appoint the receiver. After final judgment in the trial court, the Wagoner Oil & Gas Company employed Earl Goad, the defendant in error, who was an, official court reporter for that district, to prepare, a case-made in that cause and agreed to pay the costs of t'he iJrepar-ation thereof. That appeal was regularly filed in this court.

Thereafter Earl Goad filed in the same cause in the trial court an application and an amendment to the application asserting his claim and in which he prayed for an ord'er of the trial court directing the receiver to pay him out of the. funds of the receivership the sum of $225. No summons was issued for the Wagoner Oil & Gas Company or the receiver. The Wagoner Oil & Gas Company filed its general demurrer, which, among other things, alleged that the cause was pending in the Supreme Court, and by reason thereof the trial court 'had no jurisdiction of the matter at hand, and that the. application stated no cause of action for which the trial court could grant relief. The demurrer was overruled and judgment was rendered on the application for applicant, directing the receiver to pay the same out of the funds of the receivership. Notice of appeal was given and the cause was brought here by the Wagon’er Oil & Gas Company for review of the order over *30 ruling the demurrer and review of the judgment.

The application was not a plea in intervention; it was not a claim for a debt incurred by the receiver; it was not a claim against the property of the receiver, but it was a claim for a debt contracted by the own'er of the property held under receivership after the appointment of the receiver and after final judgment had been rendered, and the claim was filed in the trial court after th'e cause had been, transferred to this court by the appeal.

When the appeal from the order appointing the receiver was perfected, che district court lost jurisdiction of the particular issue appealed from. When the Supreme Court acquired jurisdiction on appeal, the lower court lost jurisdiction. Cameron v. White, 128 Okla. 251, 262 Pac. 664; Dooley v. Foreman, 94 Okla. 163, 221 Pac. 47. The trial court, while the appeal was pending in the Supreme Court, had no jurisdiction to make an order allowing a claim for a debt incurred by the owner of the property after the appointment of the receiver. The trial court is charged with notice of the appeal by th'e certificate of appeal in that cause.

The receiver took the property subject to such equities, liens, or incumbrances as existed against it at the time of his appointment. Ardmore Nat. Bank v. Briggs Machine & Supply Co. et al., 20 Okla. 427, 94 Pac. 533. Neither he nor the property involved is subject to claims for debts contracted by owner after the appointment or the receiv'er.

This claim is not a claim against the receiver, but is a claim against the Wagoner Oil & Gas Company. Its allowance was not an incident to the iconduct of the receiver.

To permit this applicant to recover, by application, ,his claim against the owner of the property for a debt contracted after the. appointment of a receiver is. to pervert the purpose of a receivership; If the Wiagoner Oil & Gas Company owes this claim, a suit may be instituted against it and a judgment recovered therefor, and until such a judgment is recovered the court has no authority to direct th'e receiver to pay such a claim.

The court erred in overruling the demurrer of the Wagoner Oil & Gas Company. The cause is remanded, with instructions to the trial court to sustain the demurrer of the Wagoner Oil & Gas Company.

LUSTER, V. O. J.. and CLAEÍC, RILEY, HEFNER. CULLISON, and SWINDALL, JJ., concur. MASON, C. J., absent; HUNT, J., not participating.

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

Related

Goldman v. Goldman
1994 OK 111 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
Cunningham v. Public Service Co. Oklahoma
1992 OK 107 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1992)
Jones v. Jones
1980 OK 85 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1980)
Blair v. District Court of Oklahoma County
1979 OK 58 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1979)
Truskey v. Truskey
1968 OK 125 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1968)
Warr v. Warr
1963 OK 185 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1963)
Sandlin v. Gragg
133 F.2d 114 (Tenth Circuit, 1943)
Jones v. Cabaniss
1939 OK 122 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Powers v. Holder
1934 OK 333 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1929 OK 149, 275 P. 1036, 136 Okla. 29, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagoner-oil-gas-co-v-goad-okla-1929.