ASH v. MICKLESON

ASH v. MICKLESON
1926 OK 298
247 P. 680
118 Okla. 163
Case Number: 16322
Decided: 04/06/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

ASH et al.
v.
MICKLESON.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Oil and Gas--Mining Partnership--Requisites. A mining partnership or joint adventure cannot exist unless there is a co-operation among the parties in the development of a lease for oil and gas, each agreeing to pay his part of the expenses and to share in the profits and losses.
2. Partnership--Nonexistence of Relation--Mere Intention to Form in Future. Where it is the intention of the parties that a partnership is to become effective upon the happening of a certain contingency, or is to take effect at a future day, the relation of partners does not exist.
3. Estoppel--Estoppel by Silence--Requisites. In order for the silence of a party to constitute an estoppel against him, it must not only have been his imperative duty to speak, but the party in whose favor the estoppel is invoked must have been misled into doing something to his detriment which he would not have done except for such silence.

Owen, Yancey & Fist, for plaintiffs in error.
Newton & Pinson, for defendant in error.

JARMAN, C.

¶1 In 1920 Swoveland & Hartman, a corporation, and George H. Currier owned an oil and gas lease on 160 acres of land in Wagoner county. Currier entered into a contract with Fred Hyer and Roy Ash to drill a well on the lease, for which Hyer and Ash were to receive $ 3 per foot. $ 1,000 was paid under the contract when the well was begun, and it was understood that the balance of the consideration was to be placed in a bank in Tulsa, to be paid when the well was completed. The well was drilled to the required depth, when it was learned by Hyer and Ash that the balance of the money to pay for the drilling of the well had not been placed in the Tulsa bank, and they thereupon filed their lien claim for the balance due for drilling the well, and foreclosed said lien, and the casing that was used in the well was sold in satisfaction thereof, and Hyer and Ash bought the same in at the sale and later sold a portion thereof to F. L. Finch, and the remainder of the casing was left with one J. W. Boley. After the contract was made with Hyer and Ash to drill said well, Mr. Hartman of Swoveland & Hartman entered into a contract with D. D. Mickleson, whereby Mickleson agreed to let Swoveland & Hartman, a corporation, have the use of the casing necessary for drilling the well, and for which Mickleson was to receive a one-fourth interest in the lease provided the well produced oil, and it was further agreed that upon the completion of the well the casing was to be returned to Mickleson. Mickleson was not interested in the drilling of the well and was not to pay any of the expenses incident thereto, and he was to become interested in the well only in the event oil was produced. No oil was ever struck in the well. Mickleson was not made a party in the action brought by Hyer and Ash to foreclose a lien on the casing. This action was brought by Mickleson against Hyer, Ash, Finch, and Boley, to recover possession of said casing. A jury was waived and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendants bring error.

¶2 The real parties in interest, who are prosecuting this appeal, are Hyer and Ash. Boley is only a nominal party and claims no interest in the casing, and it is agreed that Finch is entitled to recover from Hyer and Ash the amount he paid for casing purchased from them (for which judgment was rendered in the trial court), in the event the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It is contended by Hyer and Ash that Currier and the Swoveland-Hartman corporation and Mickleson were mining partners or joint adventurers in the drilling of said well, and that the entire property of the joint adventurers, regardless of which party contributed the same, became liable for the payment of the debts incurred in carrying out such adventure. It is further contended that any member of the joint adventure, holding possession of personal property belonging to himself or his associates, is presumed to have authority to contract with respect to such property for any purpose within the scope of the adventure, and that such contract binds his associates with respect to their interest in the property.