Court Opinion

ID: 9792340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:27:28.622369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:42.095829
License: Public Domain

DAVISON, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the present case, presents proper and legal grounds for the maintenance of a class action.
*864In the present case there were eleven royalty owners who were proper parties to the action, seven of whom were residents of Oklahoma and the other four were residents of other states whose addresses were either known or easily ascertainable to the sole plaintiff.
The pertinent statute relied on by plaintiff for the maintenance of the suit in a Class Action is 12 O.S.1961, § 233, which provides:
“When the question is one of common or general interest of many persons, or when the parties are very numerous, and it may be impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.” (Emphasis added.)
The majority opinion relies heavily on the case of Young v. West Edmond Hunton Lime Unit, Okl., 275 P.2d 304. This case, in my opinion, is distinguishable from the present case because in the cited case it was stated that there were several hundred royalty owners in similar situations as the two plaintiffs, Young and his wife.
In the case of State ex rel. Tharel v. Board of County Commissioners of Creek County, 188 Okl. 184, 107 P.2d 542, a case which permitted a class action against many defendants it was stated:
“The statute was intended to cover just such a case as is here presented. There are several hundred, if not several thousand, members of the class. To join them all in one action would mean that the case could probably never be tried, as deaths, absences, and changes of interest would make it impossible to get service on all the parties and the case at issue as to all so it could be tried. To require that separate suits be filed against the members of the class would entail a multiplicity of suits so great as to clog the dockets of the courts of the county for many months and cause needless expense to the county. * * * ”
In the case of Campbell v. Webb, 363 Mo. 1192, 258 S.W.2d 595, the court was dealing with twenty persons, who were sought to be represented in a class action. The court stated:
“Upon the record here, we must hold that the parties constituting the class action are not ‘very numerous’ within the meaning of Section 507.070, and that it was not for any other reason impracticable to bring them into court.”
In Restatement, Judgments, Sec. 86, p. 416, defines a class action as follows:
“A class action is an illustration of a situation where it is not feasible for all persons whose interests may be affected by an action to be made parties to it. It was invented by equity for situations in which the number of persons having substantially identical interest in the subject matter or litigation is so great that it is impracticable to join all of them as parties, in accordance with the usual rules of procedure, and in which an issue is raised which is common to all of such persons. * * * ”
In my opinion the case of Harding v. Cameron, D.C., 220 Federal Supp. 466, cited in the majority opinion, is not decisive of this particular question. In that case fourteen named plaintiffs brought the action for themselves and others similarly situated. The case involved a tort action by the fourteen named plaintiffs and who were royalty owners against the lessee for damages. The opinion relied on the case of Young v. West Edmond Hunton Lime Unit, supra. The opinion is silent as to the number of lessors or as to the impracticability of making all royalty owners parties. The trial court held that the cause was a proper class action maintainable by the plaintiffs. At the end of the opinion it was stated:
“Assuming, arguendo, that this case is not a class action, the rights of the named plaintiffs, and duties of the defendant, are as set forth above.”
In my opinion it was not impracticable in the present action to have made the four non-residents of the state parties. It could have been that for some reason the four non-residents were not desirous of becom*865ing parties to the action. At least they should have been given an opportunity to determine the advisability of their entering the suit.
It is noted however that the seven residents of Oklahoma were present at the trial, either in person or by their respective spouses. On the day of trial they asked to be made parties plaintiff but for fear of error or a continuance being granted their request was withdrawn. Three of these parties testified for themselves and their wives, who were also royalty owners, that they had employed the attorneys who prosecuted the case to represent them.
I am of the view that, under the facts presented, the seven resident royalty owners should be entitled to share in the judgment in the proportion their respective interest bears to the 160 acres involved. I am of the further opinion that the class action was not proper for the four nonresident royalty owners and that they should be left in the position as if the present action had not been filed.
I therefore respectfully dissent in part.