176 MOCO OIL CORPORATION V. HARRIS. [176 MOCO OIL CORPORATION V. HARRIS. Opinion delivered February 6, 1928. APPEAL AND ERROR—MOOT CASE.—In an action to cancel certain assignments of royalties in a mining lease, where the record discloses that the plaintiff had assigned all of his rights and interest to a third party, who was not objecting to the assignments sought to be canceled, the questions in the case became moot and will not be determined on appeal. Appeal from Union Chancery Court, Second Division;'A. L. Hutchins,'Chancellor on exchange ; affirmed. N. A. Cox, Pat MeNalley and Jordan Sellers, for appellant. Mahony, Yocum& Saw . , for appellee. HUMPHREYS, J. This is an appeal from the decree of the chancery court of Union County, Second Division, dismissing the complaints for want of equity in the cases Consolidated brought by appellant against each uppenee for the purpose of canceling certain oil assignments, in the nature of overriding royalties, in.an old and ga.s mining lease covering twenty acres 'of land in section 5, township 16 south, range 15 west, in said county. One of the oil assignments sought to be canceled was executed by appellant on the 14th day of July, 1923, by its vice president, William McComb, and its secretary, C. C. Beach, to appellee, City State Bank of Chicago, Illi-nois, for a valuable consideration for one-fourth of all the oil and gas produced, saved and marketed from, said lease until the bank should receive therefrom the sum of $24,000. Cancellation of the oil assignments was sought upon the alleged ground that it was never authorized or ratified by the stockliolders or board of directors of appellant, and that it was not within the scope and power of its vice president and secretary to execute same: The prayer of the complaint was in the alternative, that, if the court found the assignment to be valid, it be declared - a mortgage for the security of $10,000 alleged to have been borrowed by appellant from said appellee bank, and for an necounting and application of the proceeds of the oil received to the payment thereof.
AMC] MOCO OIL COUPORATIO g v, HARRIS. ' 177 . • The other oil assigmhents sc jight . to be canceled were executed by• appellant, acting I krough the same officers, to Gary G. Harris, by which :At conveyed to him, on November 15, 1925, for a. val hable consideration, four-sixteenths of the oil and gas produced, saved and marketed from said Jease until I Iarris should receive from the oil and gas . the Sum of 04,500; and an assignment dated November 21, 1925, in !which it conveyed to Gary G-. Harris, trustee, for a v Ouable consideration, seven thirty-seconds of •all oil a- id gas produced, saved and marketed from said lease t f rotil he should receive $10,500 therefrom. ) The grounds upon w hich the last two assignments were sought to be cancel. ad are as follows: (1) Because the a 'ssignments were not authorized or ratified by appellant either through its board of directors oy its stoekholdel . .s; ( 9 ) that, if the assignments should he upheld by t' ae court, they should •e declared mortgages for the sect fray of the loans or advances made to appellant by Gary I G. Harris, and declared usurious on account of an exa ttion of more than ten per cent. per :annum for the forbc , arance; (3) that, if the assignments should be declared . ] bans and not tainted with usury, an .accounting should 1 ic : ordered to the end that the proT• teeds derived froff LI the oil received should be applied ns payments upon ' 0 ) ie. in :ebtedness. The appellees:t .. n tlil respective suits filed answerS• controverting the lit aerial allegations in each complaint, and the cause was . 'II eard and determined upon the issues jOined by the Ho EL . A.. L. Hutchins, chancellor of the Fifth Chancery I )ik Itrict of Arkansas, in exchange of circuits with the . fl ( )n. G-. M.. LeCroy, chancellor of the Seventh Chancer i f . tistrict of Arkansas: . It is unnecessary to set out th a te: stimony introduced by the respective parties resports'ik, -.r u ) the issues joined, as it is disclosed by the record ' chat i c 1. the que i stions i : nvolved between the p arties i n th . suits\ , re Moot. The reNird . reflec ts that, on the 13th _. t-t ay of peil rnary, 1.926, appellant herein exe- cuted an .1 -1 pi gnim .,. it 0. f the oil and gas mining lease
178 MOO() OIL CORPORATION V. HARRIS. [176 involved in this controversy to II. M. Harrell in consider-. ation of $32,000 and other valuable considerations, with all rights therein and thereunder, together with all personal property used and obtained in commction therewith and all oil and- storage land covered by the lease, at 7 o 'clock A. M. February 13, 1926, and covenanted in the assignment that it was the lawful owner of said lease and rights and interests therein and of all property thereon and used in connection therewith, and that it had good right and . authority to sell the lease, rights, interest and property, and that they were clear and free froM all liens and incumbrances, save and except the lien of a certain deed of trust executed to W. G. Forrest, trustee, dated February 12, 1926, securing • he bonded indebtedness of appellant; aggregating $93,794, and save and except all valid oil assignments then of record. The assignments sought to be canceled in this consolidated suit were of record at that time. 'Under this transfer to H. M. Harrell, all equities in the property passed out of appellant into him. If the assignments are valid, he bOught subject to them, and if they are void, then the oil which was pledged to liquidate them would belong to Harrell and not to appellant. If these three oil assignments were canceled, appellant would not profit thereby, as everything it owned had passed to .Harrell, and the profit would go to him. He is the only interested party, and is making no objection, to the three assignments sought by appellant to be declared mortgage liens instead of absolute transfers. On account of all questions involved in the appeal being moot, we refrain from determining them, and on that account affirm -the decree of the chancellor dismissing the complaints.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.