Josey Oil Co. v. Ledden

6 Citing cases

  1. Rocky Mountain Steel Founds., Inc. v. Brockett Co.

    2018 N.D. 96 (N.D. 2018)   Cited 5 times

    In Josey Oil Co. v. Ledden , a drilling contractor abandoned its work when it still owed payment to various subcontractors. 162 Okla. 262, 20 P.2d 582 (1933). The Oklahoma Supreme Court held, "When it is shown that the original contractor cannot have a lien upon the property of the owner ... then his subcontractors can have no lien upon specific property under the subcontractor’s lien statute."

  2. Metropolitan Water Co. v. Hild

    1966 OK 96 (Okla. 1966)   Cited 4 times

    This court has held in several cases involving the right to an oil and gas well lien that subcontractors, being entitled to a lien to the same extent as the original contractor, have no lien where there is no liability to the original contractor under the terms of the contract. Haggard v. Sunray Oil Co., 176 Okla. 81, 54 P.2d 662; Josey Oil Co., v. Ledden, 162 Okla. 262, 20 P.2d 582; Cameron Refining Co. v. Jerman, 110 Okla. 272, 238 P. 437; Christy v. Union Oil Gas Co., 28 Okla. 324, 114 P. 740. Any doubt that the same rule applied to mechanics' liens should have been dispelled by the decision of this court in Consolidated Cut Stone Co. v. Seidenbach, 181 Okla. 578, 75 P.2d 442.

  3. Consolidated Cut Stone Co. v. Seidenbach

    181 Okla. 578 (Okla. 1938)   Cited 38 times
    In Consolidated Cut Stone Co. v. Seidenbach, 1937 OK 701, 75 P.2d 442, we examined the "extent" language in a previous version of § 143.

    This language is identical with the language of section 10977, supra, creating and granting the subcontractor's lien under the general statute. This court has uniformly held that section 10979 gives the subcontractor a lien only when the contractor has a lien, and that the subcontractor's lien can be obtained in no greater amount than is due the contractor under his contract. Christy v. Union Gasoline Co., 28 Okla. 324, 114 P. 740; Brenner Oil Co. v. Dickason-Goodman Lbr. Co., 108 Okla. 257, 236 P. 44; Cameron Refining Co. v. Jerman, 110 Okla. 272, 238 P. 437; Josey Oil Co. v. Ledden, 162 Okla. 262, 20 P.2d 582; Murray Tool Supply Co. v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 164 Okla. 136, 23 P.2d 165; Conservation Oil Co. v. Graper, 173 Okla. 127, 46 P.2d 441; Thacker v. International Supply Co. et al., 176 Okla. 14, 54 P.2d 376; Haggard et al. v. Sunray Oil Co., 176 Okla. 81, 54 P.2d 662. We do not see by what process of reasoning this court should be expected to construe the language used in section 10979 to limit the subcontractor to a lien in no greater amount and to no greater extent than the original contractor has, and then construe identical language in section 10977 to impose no limitation whatever on the subcontractor as to the amount of his recovery under his contract. The conclusion in Fossett v. Rock Island Lumber Mfg. Co., Klein v. Mays, Uhrich Millwork, Ltd., v. McGuire, and General Sports Co. v. Coombs Lbr. Co., is the same, as we view it, as the conclusion in the oil and gas well lien cases, namely, that the subcontractor's lien is limited to the amount owing from the owner under his

  4. Thacher v. International Supply Co.

    176 Okla. 14 (Okla. 1936)   Cited 10 times

    The cases cited by plaintiff in error do, in general terms, announce, the rule that where there is no primary liability existing from the lease owner to the original contractor, there call be no lien in favor of a subcontractor under said original contractor. Christy v. Union Oil Gas Co., 28 Okla. 324, 114 P. 740; Cameron Refining Co. v. Jerman, 110 Okla. 272, 238 P. 437; Brenner Oil Co. v. Dickason-Goodman Lumber Co., 108 Okla. 257, 236 P. 44; Carson v. Waller, 127 Okla. 186, 260 P. 72; Josey Oil Co. v. Ledden, 162 Okla. 262, 20 P.2d 582; Murray Tool Supply Co. v. Bridgeport Machine Co., 164 Okla. 136, 23 P.2d 165. But in each and all of such cases the driller abandoned operations and the owner received no benefit from the venture or from the contract. The principal purpose of the contract, in those cases, was never accomplished.

  5. Conservation Oil Co. v. Graper

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

    ioners and interveners performed said work and labor and furnished said material at the special instance and request of said Western Drilling Company, O.W. Dickerson, Mason Dickerson, and A.B. Sutphin; that in performing said work and labor and furnishing said material to the Western Drilling Company, O.W. Dickerson, Mason Dickerson, and A.B. Sutphin, they did so at the special instance and request of said parties in the carrying out and performing the contract above referred to entered into by and between A.B. Sutphin and Conservation Oil Company, in the drilling of said well, upon the above-described leasehold estate; and that they are entitled to judgment against the Western Drilling Company, O.W. Dickerson, Mason Dickerson, and A.B. Sutphin, and Conservation Oil Company for the sums hereinafter set forth." Under this statement of facts, we are of the opinion that this case comes within the holding of this court in the case of Josey Oil Co. et al. v. Ledden et al., 162. Okla. 262, 20 P.2d 582, wherein it is stated in the second paragraph of the syllabus as follows: "A subcontractor on a leasehold for oil and gas purposes is entitled to a lien thereon, under section 7466, C. O. S. 1921 (sec. 10979, O. S. 1931), from the same time, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as the original contractor, but is not entitled to a lien for any greater amount or to any greater extent; and where there is no primary liability to the original contractor, there is not under said act any liability to the subcontractor."

  6. Murray Tool Supply Co. v. Bridgeport Mach. Co.

    23 P.2d 165 (Okla. 1933)   Cited 7 times

    The plaintiff having failed to show the existence of a mining partnership, a discussion of the liability of the partners incident to a mining partnership and the purchase of an interest in a mining partnership is needless. Under the facts shown in this case, the plaintiff is a subcontractor, and under the rule announced in Christy v. Union Oil Gas Co., 28 Okla. 324, 114 P. 740, and Josey Oil Co., v. Ledden, 162 Okla. 262, 20 P.2d 582, was not entitled to a subcontractor's lien because Anderson Hill, the principal contractor, did not perform its contract, by reason of which the owners of the oil and gas leasehold did not become indebted to it. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.