SHIELD PETROLEUM CO. v. ATLAS SUPPLY CO.

SHIELD PETROLEUM CO. v. ATLAS SUPPLY CO.
1942 OK 254
127 P.2d 208
191 Okla. 103
Case Number: 29798
Decided: 06/23/1942
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

SHIELD PETROLEUM CO. et al.
v.
ATLAS SUPPLY CO.

Syllabus

¶0 JUDGMENT--Action for damages for wrongfully procuring receivership--Order vacating former order granting receivership not res judicata on question whether receivership was wrongfully procured.
In action wherein plaintiffs sought to recover damages against the defendant for having wrongfully procured a receivership of their property, held that the order of the court in the receivership proceedings discharging said property from said receivership and vacating its former order granting said receivership was not res adjudicata upon the question as to whether said receivership was wrongfully procured in view of section 773, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 1551.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Clarence Mills, Judge.

Action by the Shield Petroleum Company, a trust, and W. A. Schmid and Cornelius B. Savage, Trustees, and Kenneth A. Ellison against the Atlas Supply Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

T. G. Chambers, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
Yancey & Douglass, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, J.

¶1 This action originated in the district court of Oklahoma county. The appeal was lodged in this court on April 12, 1940. On April 10, 1940, the parties filed a stipulation and joint motion to the effect that the cause was tried in the lower court jointly with the cause of P. P. Gibbons et al. v. Atlas Supply Co.; since decided by this court, 190 Okla. 505, 124 P.2d 969.

¶2 The parties agreed that the questions of law were similar in the two cases, and that briefs should not be filed in this case until the decision in the companion case should be made by this court and become final. It was further stipulated that the parties should have 30 days after the final determination of the companion case in which to present their briefs.

¶3 The 30 days agreed upon has expired and no briefs have been filed.

¶4 We have examined the record and find that the controlling issues of law are the same. The decision of the trial court in this case is therefore affirmed upon authority of Gibbons v. Atlas Supply Co., supra, and the syllabus in that case is adopted as the syllabus in this case.

¶5 WELCH, C.J., CORN, V.C.J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. OSBORN, J., dissents. HURST and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.