Court Opinion

ID: 9445509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:31:18.747539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:18.209963
License: Public Domain

CAMERON, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and in part dissenting).
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the Court below as to all parties except Placid Oil Company; and in the opinion with the exception of the last paragraph.
In my opinion, the amended complaint stated an actionable claim against Placid Oil Company. It is well settled under the decisions of this Court referred to in the majority opinion (Hudson, Mackintosh and Estes) that a personal action for trespass and for an accounting and money damages may be maintained against any party properly before the Court even though recovery against such a defendant may involve deciding on a land title in which others not before the Court are interested. If, as alleged in the amended complaint, appellants own the oil, gas and other minerals and, with notice thereof, Placid Oil Company should remove minerals from the premises or commit any other actionable trespass thereon, appellants would be entitled to such damages as they may be able to establish.4
The Court below ought not, in my opinion, to have dismissed the amended complaint against Placid. It was filed and served by leave of the Court on February 7,1956. Under Rule 3, F.R.C.P., this was the “commencement of the civil action” against Placid. Under Rule 4, it was incumbent upon the Clerk to “forthwith issue a summons and deliver it for service to the marshal * * * ”5. Without waiting for any party to plead to the amended complaint, the Court below, on March 2, 1956, filed its memorandum opinion ordering the amended complaint dismissed as to all parties for want of jurisdiction. This was, in my opinion, plain error because the Court did have jurisdiction of Placid and a claim against it was stated in the complaint.
Appellants’ claim to the minerals was based upon certain alleged defects or shortcomings in condemnation proceedings which had been conducted by the United States and upon the asserted right of reacquisition under a statute *53passed in 1944 and repealed in 1949. The record of the condemnation proceedings was not before the Court below and is not before us.
In the hearings conducted by the Court below in connection with the original complaint and pleadings filed by the parties then before the Court,6 arguments were advanced going to the merits including asserted estoppel and res judicata. None of those questions were reached by the Court below because the dismissal was for want of jurisdiction. The only question arising from the amended complaint as against Placid was whether the Court had venue jurisdiction and whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court did not consider either of those points and, in my opinion, it was bound to do so and to give an affirmative answer to them.
Appellants perfected their appeal against Placid including it as an adverse party in the notice of appeal, in the statement of points to be relied upon and in the bond. They are in my opinion entitled to have their day in Court as against Placid and to whatever rights they are able to establish, based upon their assertion of them on the date the amended complaint was filed. I think the judgment of the lower Court dismissing as to Placid should be reversed and the case remanded so that appellants may pursue whatever claims they may have against Placid.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing is denied because a majority of the Court consisting of the same Judges who concurred in the judgment, so determines. Fifth Circuit Rule 29, 28 U.S.C.A.
Denied.

. The amended complaint bases jurisdiction both on diversity, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (1), and on the presence of .a federal question, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331.

. In. addition, appellants’ attorney, who did not reside in the same city with the Clerk, wrote a letter requesting the issuance of summons and offering to put it in the hands of the marshal, transmitting additional copy of the complaint for use in completing service on Placid. The Clerk seems to have done nothing towards issuance or service of summons.

. Placid was not then a party to the proceedings, having been brought in by the amended complaint with respect to which no pleadings were ever filed by any party.