From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chemical Engineering Services, Inc. v. Tomlinson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont
May 5, 1988
750 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App. 1988)

Opinion

No. 09-87-207 CV.

May 5, 1988.

Appeal from the 75th Judicial District Court, Liberty County, Clarence D. Cain, J.

Mike Fielder, Dayton, for appellant.

J.C. Zbranek and Chap B. Cain, III, Zbranek, Hight Cain, Liberty, for appellee.

OPINION


In the trial court, Appellee John R. Tomlinson, as Plaintiff, sued Appellant Chemical Engineering Services, Inc. d/b/a Drilpac Management, for money allegedly owed by Drilpac to Tomlinson pursuant to an assignment of a mineral lease from Tomlinson to Drilpac and an operating agreement to which Tomlinson and Drilpac were parties. In a contested preliminary hearing to the court, the court appointed Tomlinson as receiver, and Drilpac has perfected appeal to this court. Appellant has filed a brief, but Appellee has not.

TEX.CIV.PRAC. REM.CODE ANN. sec. 64.021 (Vernon 1986) provides in part:

"(a) To be appointed as a receiver for property that is located entirely or partly in this state, a person must:

* * * * * *

"(2) not be a party, attorney, or other person interested in the action for appointment of a receiver."

It is obvious that this statute disqualifies Appellee from being appointed receiver. Appellant's sole point of error is sustained. The order of the trial court is reversed and vacated.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Chemical Engineering Services, Inc. v. Tomlinson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont
May 5, 1988
750 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App. 1988)
Case details for

Chemical Engineering Services, Inc. v. Tomlinson

Case Details

Full title:CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. d/b/a Drilpac Management, Appellant…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont

Date published: May 5, 1988

Citations

750 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

Wiley v. Sclafani

See TEX.CIV.PRAC. REM.CODE ANN. § 64.021(a) (Vernon 1986) ("To be appointed as a receiver . . . a person must…

Swate v. Johnston

The parties and the attorneys for the parties would clearly be disqualified from being appointed a receiver.…