Anthony v. Dukes

4 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Mahan Rowsey, Inc.

    27 B.R. 883 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1983)   Cited 5 times

    Perfection, not existence, of the lien is the critical element here and, thus, its position is without merit. See eg. Anthony v. Dukes, 130 Okla. 298, 267 P. 462 (1928); Neves v. Mills, 74 Okla. 7, 176 P. 509 (1919); Bryan et al. v. Orient Lumber Coal Company, 55 Okla. 370, 156 P. 897 (1916). WellTech refers the Court to the specific wording of § 144 to wit: "Any person . . . who shall furnish any oil or gas well supplies, or perform any labor in constructing . . . shall have a lien upon the whole of such leasehold. . . ."

  2. In re Tefertiller

    1989 OK 60 (Okla. 1989)   Cited 19 times
    Noting a statutory provision that specifically allows for trust fund claims to be pursued separately from lien claims

    Unfortunately for Shawver, Bohn's holding: "Unless the lienable claim was perfected within 90 days of completion of work or the furnishing of materials, the character of the claim was no longer `lienable,'" does not stand alone on the filing requirement. See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Fraim, 54 Kan. 645, 39 P. 188 (1895); Neves v. Mills, 74 Okla. 7, 176 P. 505 (1918); Anthony v. Dukes, 130 Okla. 298, 267 P. 462 (1928); Wass v. Vickery, 137 Okla. 52, 278 P. 336 (1929); National Gas Co. v. Ada Iron Metal Co., 185 Okla. 415, 93 P.2d 529 (1939); Lewis v. Red, 194 Okla. 432, 152 P.2d 690 (1944); Fry v. Long Bell Lumber Co., 196 Okla. 670, 167 P.2d 654 (1946); Acme Glass Co. v. Owens, 204 Okla. 601, 232 P.2d 624 (1951); Palmer v. Crouch, 298 P.2d 1041 (Okla. 1956); H.E. Leonhardt Lumber Co. v. Ed Wamble Distributing Co., 378 P.2d 771 (Okla.

  3. Conservation Oil Co. v. Graper

    173 Okla. 127 (Okla. 1935)   Cited 4 times

    The trial court in this case having granted a new trial in that portion of the controversy between the owner and the contractor, it is still undertermined as to whether there exists any liability upon the part of the owner to the contractors, and we are therefore of the opinion that the trial court was in error in granting the lien and foreclosure thereof to the lien claimants upon the properties of the owner. See, also, Christy v. Union Oil Gas Co., 28 Okla. 324, 114 P. 740; Brenner Oil Co. v. Dickason-Goodman Lumber Co., 108 Okla. 257, 236 P. 44; Cameron Refining Co. v. Jerman, 110 Okla. 272, 238 P. 437; Anthony v. Dukes, 130 Okla. 298, 267 P. 462. We are also of the opinion that the trial court erred in entering a personal judgment against the owner in favor of the lien claimants, as there is no finding of fact by the referee that any privity by contract existed between the owner and the lien claimants, but, to the contrary, there appears the positive finding that they performed their labor or furnished the materials, as the case may be, at the special instance and request of the contractors.

  4. Josey Oil Co. v. Ledden

    162 Okla. 262 (Okla. 1933)   Cited 6 times

    The court in its findings of fact attempted to treat the lien claimants as original contractors by finding that they had four months within which to file the lien statements. This court, in the case of Anthony v Dukes, 130 Okla. 298, 267 P. 462, holds: "The evidence shows that the defendant * * * had a contract to drill wells for oil and gas upon the leasehold in controversy, and that the plaintiff furnished * * * the contractor material used by him in the development of the lease.