Henderson v. Cochran

HOUSER, J. From the record herein, it appears that, as derived from the lessor of certain real property, defend[114]ants Cochran were the assignees of certain royalties that accrued to them from the operation of an oil well, and of which royalties the said defendants thereafter assigned to the plaintiffs “five per cent of the total production”, etc. In the course of the distribution of such royalties by the Richfield Consolidated Oil Company, which acted as trustee with reference thereto, the plaintiffs Henderson claimed that, in accord with the terms of said assignment made to them, they had not been properly compensated. Following a trial of the issues presented by the respective pleadings in the action, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. It is from said judgment that the instant appeal is prosecuted.

The major portion of the brief filed by appellants is devoted to a consideration of their contention that the judgment is not supported by the evidence. No one would be benefited by a recitation herein of the evidence adduced on the trial. It is sufficient to indicate that, after an examination made by this court relative to the contention of appellants in regard to the liability of the defendant Rich-field Consolidated Oil Company, it manifestly appears that the point cannot be sustained. As to the purported liability of the defendants Cochran, the substance of the evidence was that they were the owners of the interest in the oil well which they assigned to the plaintiffs; but no evidence was introduced which tended to show that at any time the defendants Cochran were charged with any duty in connection .with the distribution or the delivery to the plaintiffs of the five per cent, or any other quantity of the “production” from the well. Nor was any evidence adduced by which it was shown that if the plaintiffs failed to receive the full amount of “production” to which they were entitled, the defendants Cochran were, or that either of them was, in anywise responsible for any dereliction in that regard; or that any part of the “production” to which the plaintiffs were entitled was received by either of said defendants, or by anyone for his or their use. In such circumstances, in accordance with the specific point made by the appellants, it follows that “the judgment against the Coch-' rans is not supported by the evidence”.

Appellants also suggest that, over the objection of defendants, error was committed by the trial court in its [115]