Selby v. Allen

STURTEVANT, J.

As assignee of certain claimants, the plaintiff sued to obtain a judgment enforcing an alleged judgment which purported to fix his interest in a certain fund. From a judgment in favor of the defendants "the plaintiff appealed.

Prior to the year 1924 the Pacific Corporation had undertaken the sinking and development of well No. 16, and had sold fractional interests in the production to a large number of persons. In March, 1924, A. J. Charló and many others claiming to hold interests, commenced an action to have their interests determined, to obtain an accounting, and to recover the several sums so found to be owing to such claimants. That action was number 16653 of the records of the Superior Court in and for the County of Orange. Thereafter that action was tried and findings in favor of the plaintiffs therein named were filed on September 3, 1925. The findings are very long. From them we gather the following facts: In 1922 Muriel S. Lieherman was the owner of the land. She executed a lease to R. C. Steel. He and his associates caused to be organized a corporation. The lease was assigned to the corporation. To the lessor the corporation assigned 22% per cent of the production. To Steel, Biel and Detwiler, the organizers, it assigned 32% per cent of the production. The remaining 45 per cent of the production was held for sale in units. The units were sold and from the proceeds well No. 16 was developed and oil and other products were taken out in large quantities. The

[259]

sales of units sold as above mentioned were made to a large number of different persons. The court made a finding that Muriel S. Lieberman by the terms of the lease was the owner of 22% per cent. Of the remaining 77% per cent the court made a finding in which it stated the names of the individuals and firms holding interests and the exact per cent of each holding. The total interests so found amounted to 100 per cent of the whole. In that list neither the name of this ■ plaintiff nor the name of any one or all of the assignors appears. With much care the court found and determined the assets of the Pacific Corporation, and the nature, extent, value and the name of the holder thereof. Having done so the court proceeded to make a finding in which it listed the names of the holders of such interests and the amount of money to which each of said persons was entitled out of said fund. Neither the name of this plaintiff nor the name of any or all of his assignors appears on said list. In accordance with said findings judgment was entered September 3, 1925. Prom recitals it appears that at an early date in the proceedings B. E. Travers was appointed receiver and by the terms of the findings he was continued in office for the purpose of carrying the judgment into effect. How long he continued to act does not appear. But it does clearly appear that after the above-mentioned judgment was entered the plaintiffs named these defendants as trustees for the plaintiffs in action No. 16653, that they entered upon the discharge of their duties and thereafter acted for the said plaintiffs in the enforcement of their judgment and in operating the said well.