SUTTON v. RICHARDSON

SUTTON v. RICHARDSON
1943 OK 93
137 P.2d 948
192 Okla. 563
Case Number: 29498
Decided: 03/09/1943
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

SUTTON
v.
RICHARDSON, Rec., et al.

Syllabus

¶0 RECEIVERS--Syllabus adopted.
The syllabus in cause No. 29506, Sinopoulo et al. v. Portman et al., this day decided, 192 Okla. 558, 137 P.2d 943, is hereby adopted as the syllabus herein.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Sam Hooker, Judge.

Action for receivership by Leo J. Portman against H. R. Hollenback, various other parties being brought into the case. From order charging his interest in property with proportionate part of expenses incurred by receiver, J. Frank Richardson, defendant W. W. Sutton appeals. Remanded, with directions.

W. W. Sutton, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Rex H. Holden and R. B. Holtzendorff, both of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

OSBORN, J.

¶1 This is a seperate 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.

¶2 An examination of the record herein discloses no facts which distinguish this case from the case of Sinopoulo v. Portman, and our opinion in that case is determinative of the issues presented herein.

¶3 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 Hollenback 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.

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

¶5 BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and RILEY, J., dissent.