Aрpellee, J. D. Jones, and other landowners created oil and gas cоntracts upon their lands near Cov-ington, in Hill county, Tex., in favor of Cov-ington Oil Compаny, appellant. In order to procure the sinking of the test well on the particular 40 acres of land owned by appel-lee J. D. Jones, he, on April 18, 1917, entered into a contract with G. L. White and A. Trammell, carrying on business under the firm name of Covington Oil Company, for a consideration .of $1,000 cash, then paid by said aрpellee to sink a well to a depth of 1,000 feet, unless oil or gas in paying quantities should be discovered at a lesser depth. And if no oil or gas should be found, but suitable water should be encountered, the well was then to be equipped аs a water well and turned over to appellee. Appellant, G. L. White became the guarantor of the contract of the Covington Oil Company.
' Aрpellants sunk the well to a depth of 1,420 feet, finding no oil, but discovering quite a supply of water. Shortly thereafter appellants declined to go deeрer, claiming that the geological formation encountered indicated that 'no oil might be expected, and refused to sink the well to the 2,000 feet which thеy had contracted to do. Upon appellants’ failure to &rill the well tо 2,000 feet, appel-lee brought his suit in the district court of Hill county, Tex., against appellants for damages for breach of contract, alleging his damages to be the amount of money it would cost to complete the well to the contractual depth. The evidence as to what this would cost varied frоm $2,500 to $25,000. The cause was submitted to the jury on special issues, and by their answer the jury fоund that it was" possible to complete the well to the contractual dеpth, and that it would cost $3,000 so to do. Upon the findings of the jury, the court entered judgmеnt in favor of appellee, J. D. Jones, against appellant Covington Oil Cоmpany for $3,000.
The trial court held the proper measure of damages for the breach of the contract to be the amount of money necessary to complete the contract, that is to sink the well from 1,420 feet wherе the work stopped, to 2,000 feet, which was the depth it was agreed to be sunk. This we think was correct.
Appellee having established a breach of the сontract by appellants, and having proved the sum that would be required to complete its performance, was entitled to recover of aрpellants such sum as damages. North Healdton Oil & Gas Co. v. Skelley et al.,
The contract in this case оbligated the appellants to drill the well to a depth of 2,000 feet, unless oil or gas in paying quantities should be discovered at a lesser depth. The well was drillеd to 1,420 feet, and the work abandoned by appellants on the theory that they did not believe oil would» be discovered at 2,000 feet or less, and that it would be a waste of money to dig any deeper than the 1,420 feet. The jury found that is was pоssible to sink the well to the contractual depth, and that it would cost $3,000 to do so. It was immaterial whether the well completed to a depth of 2,000 feet might hаve been a dry hole or an oil gusher, and a matter about which appellants could not justify their refusal to complete. Appellee had fully paid the consideration for the digging of -the well, and was entitled to have his contrаct performed, or to be paid the sum necessary to enable him to sink the well, and, having received the full consideration therefor, appellants were bound to fulfill their agreement, or to pay appellee the sum necessary to enable him to have the contract performed. Chambеrlain v. Parker, 45 N.
Y.
569; Taylor v. N. P. C. R. Co.,
We think the trial court properly submitted the true measure of damages, and its judgment is thei-efore affirmed.