Title: M & B DRILLING CO. v. Campbell
Citation: 197 Kan. 323, 416 P.2d 777
Docket Number: 44,521
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 14, 1966

197 Kan. 323 (1966)
416 P.2d 777
M &amp; B DRILLING COMPANY, INC., a Corporation, Appellant,
v.
A.D. CAMPBELL and AVA CAMPBELL, Appellees, and B.W. KLIPPEL and ALLEEN P. KLIPPEL, Defendants.
No. 44,521

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 14, 1966.
Thomas A. Wood, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Kenneth H. Foust and John O. Foust, of Iola, and Paul V. Smith, Douglas E. Shay, William C. Farmer, Leo R. Wetta, James R. Schaefer and Larry L. Witherspoon, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Charles H. Apt, of Iola, argued the cause, and Frederick G. Apt, Jr., of Iola, was with him on the briefs for the appellees.
Harold H. Malone, of Wichita, was on the briefs for the defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This is an appeal from an order of the district court refusing to open a judgment cancelling an oil and gas lease. The judgment was rendered at the day of trial without any appearance on the part of the lessee.
The only issue before us is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that notice was properly given the lessee's attorney of record of the time set for the trial of the action to cancel the lease.
On October 2, 1962, the appellees, owners of an eighty acre tract in Allen County, Kansas, brought an action against the NAKO Corporation to cancel an oil and gas lease which it had acquired on the tract by various intermediate assignments. The Klippels, owners of an overriding royalty, and two lienholders of record with whom *324 we are not presently concerned, were made parties. An answer was filed on behalf of NAKO Corporation by their attorney, Mr. John Sherman.
The case was called for trial on February 15, 1963, and in the absence of any appearance for NAKO Corporation judgment was granted cancelling the lease.
In the meantime the NAKO Corporation was placed in bankruptcy and on October 4, 1963, the ancillary receiver sold certain property, including all of the interest of NAKO Corporation in the oil and gas lease in controversy, to M &amp; B Drilling Co., Inc.
On April 17, 1964, some fourteen months after the judgment was rendered, the plaintiff, the M &amp; B Drilling Company, brought an independent action to have the judgment cancelling the lease set aside for lack of notice of the hearing. At the trial of this action the only issue of fact considered was whether or not NAKO Corporation or its attorney had timely notice of the trial in the action to cancel the lease. After hearing considerable evidence the trial court found in addition to the facts we have stated the following:
..............
..............
Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants and the plaintiff has appealed.
In considering the question before us we are bound by our universal rule that if findings are supported by substantial competent evidence they will not be disturbed on appeal and this court will not weigh conflicting evidence but will examine the record only for the purpose of determining whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the judgment. (Nichols Co. v. Meredith, 192 Kan. 648, 391 P.2d 136; Preston v. Preston, 193 Kan. 379, 394 P.2d 43; Matson v. Christy, 194 Kan. 174, 398 P.2d 317; In re Estate of Latshaw, 194 Kan. 747, 402 P.2d 323; Diefenbach v. State Highway Commission, 195 Kan. 445, 407 P.2d 228.) This is true even though the record discloses some evidence which might have warranted the trial court making findings to the contrary. (Wood v. Board of County Commissioners, 181 Kan. 76, 309 P.2d 671; Shotzman v. Ward, 172 Kan. 272, 239 P.2d 935.)
Appellant states:
It might be said that there was no positive evidence that notice of the trial was or was not received by John Sherman. The burden of proof was on the appellant, the moving party, to satisfy the court that its attorney of record had not received notice of the trial.
John Sherman, the attorney of record, testified that prior to February 15, 1963, he notified the officers of NAKO Corporation that he would not represent them and they would have to get other counsel. We quote part of his testimony:
..............
..............
Mr. Shell stated by affidavit that he was contacted but he and his firm decided not to represent NAKO Corporation. He received from John Sherman an envelope enclosing a letter from Charles H. Apt with a copy of the journal entry which he mailed to B.W. Klippel, an officer of NAKO Corporation. He received no notice that the action to cancel the lease was set for trial.
The court reporter testified:
"A. I did.
..............
"Q. This was your practice in January of 1963?
"A. It was.
..............
"A. That is correct.
These facts, coupled with the finding of the court first quoted and which is not disputed, formed a sufficient basis for a conclusion that it was indifference because of financial difficulties rather than lack of notice which caused the default in appearance for trial.
The judgment is affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.
FATZER and FONTRON, JJ., dissent from the holding in paragraph No. 2 of the Syllabus and the corresponding portion of the opinion.