*1 (Tex. 220 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER contract deception, competent slightest port rial ject-matter real of termined'by 3. Contracts consideration was certained ise is be found cause the sworn answer denies lessee, or and other within the the They as a should be made main discuss (Court should first offer to S.W. appellants but, sworn entitled as a guided by 1. Parties HITSON et ux. v. Jan. affected should be made immaterial conferred no There are several other [4] Sterns, Mines option Ordinarily, Oil lease held to amount due pleading payment allegations value in the injunction. the most onerous supplemental Appellant Appellees condition thereof to enter issue, ask that immaterial not an estate equity consideration. pleadings judgment have been answer injunction, them. pay they please and minerals to enter Civil minerals, 18 Tex. payable. 1920. On Motions for <®=>29—AH petition, sound <@=353Adequacy in absence illegality. Corbett is all single final matter of estate, Appeals negatives precedent the sum facts of the show urges do persons parties, is is in the absence eyes necessary. GILMAN Under dissolved. long proceeding develop — sufficient. but affirmed. petition, certain not deem dcseretion of If affected petition, the notes is of all such sums as <@=>55(3), Porter being persons land, 18 Am. St. of fraud. Weaver v. obligation, adequate are collateral interested Sweeney, judgment. 1920.) their to tender such sum actually is and their defendants proposition that, parties. all to the land. is still a conferred Texas. Ft. Worth. et al. points required. and absence develop sufficient to amount the verification Even where law, particular of consideration and tender allegations make pleadings interested license or all the mate Johnson, necessary something 58—Oil ascertained, Rehearing, granting of equities due be Rep. (No. dissolution Nugent, 72 briefed whether since it 151 S. injunction fraud, rights de- it for whatever a license gas dispute. are the sub- Spann 9171.) fraud, 792. prom- case sup- op- de whereby as set oil instrument legal liability rentals until tual, vague well within 8. Mines and minerals tals 4. Mines drilling cause of privilege 5. 7. Mines and minerals maije with fails consideration such 9. Mines development, also to what the true consideration was. 6. lessors, a recited consideration the lease on the was ther to drill a well or to of an oil lease drill an hors a forfeiture does ment nature of a avoid an oil rule, erty, to serve as ficient sideration. oil lessee’s es are was. inhibited oil paying rentals. lease entitled to show recited not entitled to mutual was not Contracts Mines and execute oil Mutual In Because Where the real consideration for execution Where an oil lessee Under an Oil only Mines lessors 25 gas lease under which the lessee no clear hut must effect the forfeiture and unduly and support a well develop. consideration for oil well within six lessee to some construed to the lessors were promises may construed and minerals gas provision absence by equity. gas, well, paid, indeterminate, promises may paying specific gas leases, contrary support time to serve as consideration annum consideration. <@=56 — minerals on each of one dollar was not oil if promise equitable minerals within months, delay development also be promises allege cents minerals theory actually paid, ordinary and what injure to drill well or rents instead of in favor of vagrant of should in favor intent of not for failure as rentals until commence- for rentals lessee, subsidiary options and the lessors per six fraud or deceit promisor. <@=>73 <@=>78(2) on the lessee’s of mutual calling promise concurrent, certain, constitute valuable con- <@=>58 enabling development unduly <§=>58 Certain and reason, <@=>59 option the lessor opportunity <@=>78(2) months, prove constitute a valuable agreed oil lease. contract, fraudulently acre be rule that and must apply months, true consideration of the lessors. —Oil commenced, —One dollar suf- —No lessors. —Lessors that the fugitive per —Forfeiture to the to an oil promises. attacking being to commence and specified ren- -only or to the lessee develop, fulfilling drilling, —Oil develop but to have pay delayed promise wrongfully annum obligatory dollar impose sufficient, upon gas delaying promise induced recited, pay nature in oil prop- leas- mu- and etc. but ab- be- oil ei- it, Digests Key-Numbered topic <@=>For Indexes in all see same other cases KEY-NUMBER *2 Tex.) . HITSON v GILMAN i.W.) (220 constituting Rehearing. merely for On consideration Motions rentals for covered, period during tlie ¡@=>58 pay- 16. Mines and minerals —Advance original place supplying agreement ment under between oil lessors being lease, an for (cid:127) constituting and sublessee not original by supported con- an which must be support original lease. sideration. Agreement original between oil lessors and company, assignee part original an oil of of the <@=>59 Acceptance and minerals 11. Mines — place lessee, merely lease from the 'held intended to drilling paid of of rentals oii lessors company relieve oil from hazard of default claiming estop of want from did not lessors payment part of rentals on the of sub- original consideration. company, lessee other than the and to extend be evidence, supporting mere absence of required the time within which it would paid acceptance by of rentals oil lessors quarter drill a well on its until section cer- having drilled well of not the lessee because date; payment accompanying tain the advance pleading estop lessors agreement constituting sufficient consid- original proving exe- for want of original eration to the lessors ; payment rent- of the of the lease cution company far of the interest amounting to consideration als was concerned. delay perform- right option to or lessee for a <@=>74 during 17. Mines and minerals sublessees contract, by —Oil ance of the paying protected pur- rentals not as innocent payment. period covered against claiming chasers for value lessors ¡@=356 pais want of estoppel unless consideration for lease. Estoppel 12. —No If conduct. oil of lease rentals matters influenced subles- op- pais, sees estoppel afforded consideration for an To constitute original pe- lessee to extend to constitute matters claimed shown an fluenced respect riod within for in- would bo to drill estoppel material in some oil, invoking party of such rentals did not consti- the conduct purchasers tho tute sublessees innocent for estoppel. value, infirmity without notice of <@=>74 original supported by un- lease that was minerals —Sublessees Mines against sideration, thereby protected protection of rule not within der oil lease lessors. purchasers notice. without of innocent favor <@=>74 giving to drill lessee 18. Mines and minerals sublessee An oil —Oil months, and, purchaser alterna- necessarily in the innocent for value. for oil within an- tive, acre rentals company, The mere that an oil subles- fact equity, sub- num, lessees, original a mere confers of see of an oil valuable con- attacking the against sublease, proof the lessors for without of sideration its with- knowledge claim of notice the defense of want want of consideration to of purchasers protection for value original of of in the rule which the original con- in the subject, of the vice notice other circumstances lease was show- original lease, rule company, since ing good in the in the sublessee wan sideration faith purchasers have cases of inno- to establish the defense extends not sufficient conveyance. original purchaser taken a for value from cent sotting up original against lessors for lease. of want (cid:127)the Presumption ¡@=>917(3)— Appeal exception to clause <@=>74 minerals 19. Mines —Sublessees statutory ground which on a sustained notice of form and ef- affected with oil lease repealed. been lease. fect Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. arts. Yernon’s parts an oil lease af- were Sublessees plain- requiring 1829a, 1829b, of a verification form and with notice fected repealed by having pleading assignor. tiff’s original lease to their Leg. (1915) of Civil the Court c. 34th Acts Court, Appeal Eastland from District Appeals the trial court’s should assume sustaining Burkett, Judge. County; to a clause order petition Joe not not based against and wife W. T. Hitson Suit affidavit. verified From and others. F. Gilman R. Reversed, defendants, appeal. for <@=>74 Mines and minerals lessors after —Oil cause remanded. assignments by lessee not entitled to have paid as whole. Baldwin, Worth, & of Ft. Alexander calling Eastland, appellants. an oil lease for months, Rust, of Where for R. L. pay- well the lessee within six Scott, Smith, Eastland, Brelsfort Prairie Oil & expressly of certain ment appellee Co. might assign any part all or Worth, Garver, D. Robert Ft. and S. land,' any assignee the lease was entitled Marshall, appellee Dallas, W. protect his Gas & Fuel Co. proportionate of the rentals Wright, Cisco, appellee Butts & the rate Ohio Cities Gas Co. lease; being the lessors entitled to have Stubblefield, Eastland, R. J. for other installments, assignments by after appellees. lessee, as a whole. . topic
<@=>Eor
Key-Numbered Digests
other cases see
and KEY-NUMBER in all
and Indexes
(Tes.
REPORTER
220 SOUTHWESTERN
presented
said
ing
it for had not
a valuable consideration
of the lease was attached to
ment
24,
that
on this 160
lease shall
had tendered
and
tract;
failure to
ly
involved which had been
answered
receipt
estoppel
procured
ment recited
land,
all
ditions herein
named were
tiffs were entitled to the same
the contract was without
that
not
tice of
defendant Gilman.
tion as an exhibit.
after
but that this
sideration was
within six
lands under
as
among
relied
complete
thing,
defendants,
that the contract was unilateral and
want of
plaintiffs
on
T.
tract with defendant
were the owners
acres
D.
petition,
tiffs
scribing
Company,
Company, Empire
Plaintiffs
The defendant
CONNER,
Mobley,
payments, obligations,
Hitson and
binding
were
alleged
shall be released and
and
title,
plaintiffs sought
(5)
all
neither to
them
30th
quarterly
filed November
mutuality
land
surrender of said
forfeited for that reason.
entered into
by plea misjoinder
to March
numerous
alleged
pay any
be null and
thereby
months,
the land
Sun
and for
(cid:127) prayed
and
of the facts
R.
acres for
surrender
day
o.
being:
claiming
of one dollar lessee shall have ice
some
fraudulent
that on June
land;
the entire
one dollar to each defendant ments
claimed 160
plaintiffs; (2)
P.
that a well
all
J. This suit
plaintiffs by
B.
contained, whereupon
Company,
wife,
Prairie Oil &
was unilateral
by fee-simple
Eastland
rental
*3
Gilman,
that the other defendants
drill nor
Gas áfc
defendants,
kind
which was not
released from
G.
installment
plaintiffs
(1)
due
that on said
exceptions,
September, 1918,
24, 1919, setting up
to do or
paid,
Gilman, covering
one
some interest
providing'
Dawes.
void,”
this
alleged
to cancel this lease
beginning
That
September 24,
29, 1918,
misrepresentations,
premises,
covenants and con- concluded that
plaintiffs
Fuel
certain
plaintiffs,
consideration; (3) the
Prairie Oil
year
acres.of
duly assigned
county, Tex., de-
Ohio
several
would be
discharged
lease and there-
that
reason
and that
24, 1916,
plaintiffs’ peti- passing,
was instituted
the lease was
transfer from
perform
special
Company,
By
title
should be will have been
from
and void
rental;
one
Cities
the instru-
rental due
lease con-
December
done,
canceling subject-matter
plaintiff;
and that
date the
the lease not
amended
real
pleading
declared
grounds,
thereof; presented
void
parties,
special- pellees,
A
drilled-
dollar,
Gas&
relief.
“upon
quiet-
plain-
plain-
from
copy among
pay-
1646
any-
con- fact
said
and without a
Gas the
no- the
(4)
H. and
in erance
a S.
rights
and
like
versed
merits,
ment should be made
other,
first and second
the time of another trial service of citation
v
again arise,
ice
p. 517, 29;
Dawes,
severance
§
then before the
think,
Gas
ed
against
Empire
tinue the
the Sun
trial.
ment.
ment and
trial.
tiffs
ment
also, by way
lease,
pany
and B.
pany,
Gilman
exceptions
as to
rate
This
Defendants the
Service
E.
on
plaintiffs
three defendants in whose favor the sev-
wholly
Mobley,
Company;
some of
severance for
reason will exist for
parcels
insist
appealed.
By
.
but must
and averred
and also
determined
The
the defendants the Sun
with
citation,
Moore
assignment
further observe that in this
had
§
brings
on another
the titles
Gas & Fuel
plaintiffs,
the Prairie Oil & Gas
G. Dawes was not in
stated the true terms of the
Company
very
Dickinson,
refer to the well-established rule
entire case in order to
their
defendants
to the
oh this
that all
tender
as did the
defendants.
jury,
court, however,
distinct and
Gas &Fuel
Dawes, and,
case was tried before the court
hence we
been
presented
it
the cases dted in behalf of
2
citation on the Sun
material
tous
case to
and to be affected
perfected upon
these defendants
objections
first two
severally
being certainly
Black on
and also continued the case
cross-action
land,
brief
companies
Jennings,
assignment
granted,
appeal.
Ohio
and
continued
last
under which it claimed.
persons
that
the several defendants are
Company,
establishing
defendant Gilman.
Mobley
judgment
court erred in
judgment
Prairie Oil & Gas
pass
notice,
and also
substantially
Dawes
were
single
rest
Company,
purpose
proceed
Cities Gas
independent
controlling question
set
assignments,
Rescission,
mentioned in the
all
It is
and the
over the
named. We have
these two
interested
involving, as we
will,
lease
prayed
entitled
and
required by
the case as
final
separate
will not
and Ohio Cities
in view of the
partiesl being
the Sun Com
Company
Company,
probable
of immediate
true that
time
must be re
rendered
presented by
pleaded
title to
perfect
perfect
going
by the;
being grant-
however,
the lease of
to trial as
and
Va.
contract
judgment;
4 R. L.
Company,
Company
plaintiffs
objection
case,
the same
granting
p. 1503,
validity
for the
Gilman
assign
to the
agree-
plain
likely
trials
judg
C.
their
sepa-
judg-
Com-
serv-
serv
each
Ferguson
pay-
con
un
ap
for
Tex.)
GILMAN
HITSON v
(220 ÍS.W.)
many
appellants’
assignment
lessee to drill
additional
third
premises during
wells on said
life of this
reads as follows:
desire thereon.”
refusing
allow the
“The court erred
testify
plaintiff
stand
provides
while
the witness
The.lease further
consid-
dollar
he did
receive the
“right
subdividing
shall have the
and re-
contract, for the
eration mentioned
reasons
referred to
the lease
leasing
any part”
all or
of the land described
No.
here
bill of
shown
and also that—
requested
considered a
“Upon
the
right
of one dollar lessee shall
part hereof.”
have the
to surrender this lease and there-
discharged
plaintiff after shall be
that,
released and
while
The record shows
payments, obligations,
testifying
covenants and conditions
Hitson
on the stand
W. T.
*4
whereupon
contained,
herein
this lease shall be
following
behalf,
was asked the
own
void;
conditions,
null and
and that all
terms
question:
parties
and limitations between the
hereto shall
n
made,
“At the
lease contract
time this
heirs, personal representatives
extend to their
you,
not,
recited
assigns.”
or
the
been
receive
having
paid?”
in the lease as
[2,
3]
lease,
The
effect of the
under
Ripe
the
Teel,
case of Oil
question
would have
&
Line Co. v.
witness
95
the
To which
586,
979,
Tex.
68
answered,
S.
“No,
ob-
later referred to
not.” Defendants
with
I did
disapproval
out
Daughery,
jected
question
there-
case of Texas
answer
not
Co.
to said
226,
717,
sworn to
107 Tex.
176 W.
to,
L. R.
“because the
1917F,
clearly
989,
A.
is
as to defend-
to confer
immaterial
it was
and because
objections lessee
land,
only
not an
The
estate
court.”
ants then before
option
a license or
the witness
enter
land
sustained
were
was not allowed
develop
question;
scribed in
the lease and
it for oil and
answer
support
other minerals. To
ruling
court
there
action and
excepted,
must be a
duly
consideration.
In the
case before
plaintiffs
then
us, the instrument
recites a consideration of
assign
above stated.
as
here
ordinary
one dollar.
If this was a case of the
provisions of the
will here notice such
tenant,
lease between landlord and
it would
plaintiffs
de-
lease from
insignificant
wholly
indeed seem to be
pertinent.
as we think
fendant R. Gilman
In a
F.
immaterial,
appellees
argu
of their
may
one
it
way,
is
be said
Ordinarily,
long
ments insist.
so
as it
is
It re-
the usual oil lease.
same as
much the
something
eye
law,
of real value
cites, however, that—
adequate
whether or not the
is
dollar,
.
of one
acknowledged,
“The- lessors
promise
to the
of fraud. The
is
immaterial
the absence
receipt
hereby
hereof
'the
slightest
consideration seems
hereby
demise,
grant,
unto
and let
does
support
to be sufficient to
most
onerous
oil, gas, gold, silver, coal, lead,
lessees all the
obligation;
inadequacy,
said,
has
following
zinc, in
under the
described
for the
is
making
consider at the
time
the lessee’s
with covenant for
tract
land
*
* *
term,
agreement,
enjoyment
with the exclusive
quiet
to-
not for the
gether
sought
unto the lessee
when it
to be enforced.
It is com
operate
oil, gas, silver,
for and mine
and drill
to
coal,
petent
parties to
make whatever
con
lay
pipe
zinc,
maintain
lead and
please,
long
tracts
not fraud or
as there is
* * *
i
lines.
deception
infringement
hold
for the
“To have and to
unto and
use
bargain
law.
the fact
Hence
years
from
term
of lessee
five
deprive
validity.
hard one will not
it of
longer
gas,
gold,
oil,
much
hereof
date
Corpus
365,
Juris, p.
§
produced
silver, coal,
quantities,
or zinc
lead
[4, 5] It has often been
in our
decided
one-eighth
yielding
lessor
involuntary
courts,
sales,
even in
cases
prem-
produced
the oil
and saved
execution,
expense
that a
will not be
sale
set
tanks
delivered free of
into the
ises
irreg
pipe
aside
ularity
absence of some fraud or
lines
the lessor’s credit.”
inadequacy
on
account
con
provides:
lease further
great
inadequacy is so
sideration
as to shock the conscience. The
unless
principles
agrees
(Gilman)
“The lessee
to commence
premises so stated
seem to have force
when
a well on the above-described
(G)
hereof,
seeking
sufficiency
six
months
within
the date
test
con
twenty-five
pay
(25)
to
acre
to the lessors
support
sideration
an oil
annum as
rentals
option.
amounts
than an
See Oil
to no more
payable quarterly
premises
advance
Quebe Ry.
Pipe
Teel, supra;
Line Co. v.
day
1916,
December,
24th
a well
until
shall
20,
Co.,
A.
66 L. R.
premises,
be commenced on said
or this lease
Ry.
545; Gregory
Co.,
4 Ann. Cas.
155 S.
surrendered, which
contract
complete
any
drilling
surrender shall be
McCalmont,
2 How.
W.
Ui
been,
paid;
day
able
fact not
otherwise
in advance from the 24th
December,
until
shall
If in
the recited
commenced
attack must fail.
sideration was
think,
fact
premises,
on said
or this lease
held,
paid,
contract sur-
must be
rendered,
upon
complete
which surrender shall be
to,
referred
under the authorities
pay any
the failure of the lessee to
install-
op-
was sufficient
ment of rentals when due.”
land,
development
for the
subsidiary
but also sufficient to
plain
language
It
quoted
seems
options
in
paying
instru-
or correlated
contained
promise
does not amount
to a clear
on Gil-
rents,
privilege of
ment
as the
dig
man’s
pay
either
a well or to
the
promise
alleged,
plaintiffs
etc.
in their
rentals at
time. The
of one
recited
is
during
that he will do one or the other
alleged
not been
dollar had
the continuance of the
execution
the real consideration
wholly
terminated
a mere failure
promise
to drill
the
the
pay
on his
rentals
exercise
within
an
months;
land in
oil well
option given
in the lease to end it
alleging
further
in this connection
event,
dollar.
In neither
un-
spe-
promise with the
made the
that Gilman
cific intent
der the terms of the
does a mere fail-
fulfilling it and
time of
dig
ure to
impose
well or to
fraudulently
ex-
thereby
induced
legal liability upon the lessee.
*5
case, it is undoubt-
In such
lease.
ecute the
suggested,
[8-10]
however,
It
is further
attacking
party
in-
the
edly
the
true
payment
the
of several
installments
allege
prove
re-
the
strument
rental, which the evidence shows had been
paid and what
cited
the true
1042,
regularly paid
accepted by appellant
to and
p.
10
L.
R. C.
was.
Hitson,
W. T.
until at least the
in
Foust,
seq;
81 Tex.
Lanier v.
et
§ 236
September, 1918,
stallment
a
constitutes
Merrill,
Taylor
64
994;
v.
186,
494; Tipton
W.
Tex.
16 S.
supporting,
the
and that
App. 619,
Tipton,
47
Civ.
v.
proffered
hence the exclusion of the
evidence
Shields,
830;
Gypsum Co. v.
U.
W.
S.
105 S.
106 S. W.
913;
immaterial,
for this reason also. But we
n
Flint,
History
725;
v.
15 S. W.
Co.
adopt
suggestion.
do
gas
Oil and
Hears,
470,
Dairy
82
123 Mich.
Ass’n v.
contrary
leases,
general rule,
are con
Kahn, 103,
308,
258;
15
Ala.
White v.
N. W.
Emery
strued in favor of the lessors.
v.
South.
League,
Aycock
App.
31 Tex.
474,
603;
848;
Civ.
72 S. W.
ap-
said,
think, as
[6,
we
7] It
be
Co.,
v. Reliance Oil
210 S. W.
pellees
effect
of their contentions
in some
L., Mines, 115,
18
p.
R. C.
§
Because
proffered testi-
the
urge,
the exclusion
vagrant
fugitive
the
nature of oil and
immaterial,
mony
considera-
gas,
liability
their
to wander or be drawn
shown.
one was
recited
than
other
elsewhere,
developed,
opportu
if not
and the
a
for such
in the evidence
no basis
There is
nity
injure
oppress
of the lessee to
contention,
be said that
there
unless it can
by delaying development,
ordinary
lessor
promise
appellee
on
Gilman’s
was some
in
rule that
a
abhors
forfeiture does not
consideration,
amounting
legal
ato
effect
apply.
123;
Burch,
621,
Risch v.
175 Ind.
95 N. E.
subsequent payment of
or unless
Co.,
Howerton v. Kansas Natural Gas
record,
to
be construed
as shown
553,
47,
81
(N. S.)
Kan.
106 Pac.
34 L. R. A.
supplying
of an
the want
as
34; Hughes
Busseyville
v.
Co.,
O. & G.
180
consideration. But we think neither of these Ky. 545,
applied
203 S.
As
W. 515.
to and
positions
be maintained.
It
true mutu-
can
consideration,
limited
lessee
the lease under
promises may
al
a valuable con-
constitute
cannot, by paying rentals, unduly
contract,
a
but to have
sideration
lay
development
property.
The
promises
must not
that effect
be mu- provision for rentals is in the nature of a
tual,
concurrent,
must
must be
privilege enabling the lessee to save a for
vague
indeterminate,
certain and
delayed
equi
feiture where
because of some
n
liability
person
impose
a
on the
payment
table reason. The
the several
of the rentals at
promise.
making
327,
Corpus
p.
Juris,
periods
See 13
installment
con
273, inclusive,
delay
cases
during
§§
cited
stitutes a consideration for the
principles,
promise
period
these
notes. Tested
no
payment. During
covered
on
found that
period,
acceptance
fulfills
rental,
after an
requirements.
The whole attitude of
the
appellees
lessor
the
lease
al
declare
forfeiture
any prom-
nondrilling
in the case is
denial of
well.
rent
party to
payment
the suit not to
ise
amounts to
more than
no
this.
within the terms
the lease under
found
supplied
place
think
We do not
it
repeat,
language
To
examination.
original consideration for the execution of
is:
lease. The
rental
option,
an
must receive
is hut
agrees
commence
“The lessee
an
consideration.
See Owens
premises
.the above-described
within six
Co.,
192;
Corsicana Petroleum
pay
months from the date hereof
lessors
annum rentals
Richardson,
Ky.
-twenty-five
(25)
Monarch
& Gas
124
Oil
Co.
premises
668;
Combs,
pay- 602,
on and
W.
Dinsmoor
177
S.
what
provision,
by ceeding
126 W.
App. 169, insist
pais,
period
words,
viewing
the
cured the
urged.
sideration of
of well.
the
several
some material
claimed to constitute an
ers’
other
person
to no more than a sufficient consideration
the
which
show,
certainty,
the lessor
sequent
in no wise induced
seen,
in terms
a well
rentals was
and its
consider
think
Ky. 740,
cant
fest
An
162 Ind.
the other
& Co. v. Irvin
110;
justified
Coryell,
of
and
er
tion for the execution
Gilliam
Tex.)
[12] In
G.
delay performance
omission,
the lessors was
appellees,
supporting
particular period
estoppel
payment
paramount
appellees
proving
urged.
Gas & Trust Co. v.
rental
Consumers’ Gas &
may
the lease under
it must be shown that
cases cited in
as
operated
Nor
terms
party invoking
from the
lease.
subject-matter,
covered
Head
59 Tex. Civ.
of oil wells
return
(Ky.)
estopped
subdivisions of the
him
198 S.
the
the almost
we
specifically
party against
order to constitute an
the
as we
not be
lessor
of
do we
Upon payment
payment
holding
for the benefit
think,
Construing
a want
where such act or omission was purchase
lease
cannot be invoked to
the lessee for the
of
if not
contract.
appellants,
v. Pac.
any
of rentals as
207 W.
S.
act,
time
provision for the
respect
By
W. Warren
evidence,
in the
as an inducement
lease extended. Consum
the inducement
N.
legal consequences
contract, to
inaptly
purchase,
Development
think,
of rentals
S.
installment of
declaration,
appellants
as a whole
of
with
its
E.
during
all of
682. The record fails to pears defective,
App.
required,
that mere
connection therewith.
Express Co.,
require
if not
and of
of the rental amounted
over which the
already
of the contract
influenced
royalties
terms,
the act or omission of
an
hope
in the
whom the
As
(cid:127)
of well
a sufficient
payment.
Trust
waived
termed
seems
or either of
Littler,
digging
them,
estoppel.
of
in
estoppel
entirely
lease as
or consideration
specified,
receiving a con
wit,
specified.
performance
makes
the lessee.
ruling
ground upon
paragraphs
ing
tained.
asserted
taining
no installments of rentals under said lease had
and received rentals under said lease
been
come due and
paragraph
cember, 1916;
advance, the first installment of rentals to be-
December
alive and
petition
er the lease was
was executed
June, 1916,
ceived
to.
on the
first
which is hereto attached
A’ and made a
conditions of
by
same to be
tion
court.”
urged:
was not
and
purposes,
said
by
no consideration
to
tion
reads as
of one dollar
plaintiffs,
warranted the admission
vides that
have been
vious
was
court had sustained
lease had never been
was left no
he should be
and defense
that
the fact that the
instruments not
which article 584
an
the effect
ing
“(B) It
“
“That said
To which the
Finally,
the statute
(A) It is not verified
action
acre on said
no
was the
paragraph
paid by
and same should be so
owner
lands
sum
plaintiff
must have
development
complaint
It
in
pretended
follows:
appears
which has never
was without
that the
24, 1916,
thereon
an
null and void and without
subject
it is insisted
to the defendant.
force
and amount of $700.”
appellees.
and
exception
instrument recited
to which
alleged
allegation in the
plaintiffs’
before notice
drilling of
by
assignee
the lessee and
and no sum
which the
in truth and in fact said dollar
payable
requiring
elsewhere
plaintiffs
paid
and
of said
an annual rental of 25 cents
in
executed, wit,
and
plaintiffs
for the lease.
sustained the
negotiable
lands, payable quarterly
time,
of this
lessee
is here
the sixth
following exception
and facts
been,
that,
our
the lease
the same
been,
if
on the 24th
to allow
thereof
consideration, as shown
is not.
the facts
does not
The court’s order sus
plaintiffs’
petition
such
by
petition
within six months aft- sustained,
in
Revised
no well be
defendant
wells
special
petition, which
contract, a
under the
on the 24th
affidavit as
and to
contention
urged,
hands of
pleas
accepted
paragraph
inasmuch
the lessee
money
alleged
declared
marked ‘Exhibit
might
for oil and
name,
alleged
petition which
a consideration
might
every
real considera-
that the lease
have
exception,
The clause
of which
alleged
which set
done,
Statutes
indicate the
land for
testimony to
law,”
on or before judgment be reversed and the cause re-
in fact
justify
assignment
day
commenced ment of
Gilman to
terms and
considera-
was sus said 160 acres
maintain
but
it would
in other
grounds time,
accepted
discount
any pre-
required
copy
and re-
in said
so that
exceed-
relates
recited
day
in the
sworn
shows
kept
paid
paid
whs
pro-
De-
the from Hitson a
rul-
gas
in reached,
at the rate
ters,
company
Prairie Oil &
specified
the 160 acres claimed
due March
language used.
manded.
provisions
it
complaint
have been the construction
other circumstances
cause remanded.
proper
pellant’s
cited
clude that the
described
signee
proved
original
tionate
fied
months.
Hitson’s
think
from other
specific promise
and in view of another
pleading,
Tex.
quiring
denial
tion
think
the
affidavit,
the effect that the
execution of the lease
stated in
CONNER,
It is
BUCK,
On
[15] In
protect
appearing
every
Legislature, p.
think
paid by
in
in this
arises,
and as
Civ.
we should assume that
might assign
On Motions for
wit: The sum
ordered that
verification of a
error,
without
in
also
testimony
contention
several sublessees.
contention that he
inasmuch as the act
whole,
it is to be
such as
his own lease
say
a number of
reversing
and for
section
Stats,
J.,
24,"
original lease,
parts
*7
part
case,
C. J. On March
paid
Gas
that we do not
receipt
by
concurs
which we have
petition
therefore,
arts.
agreeing
lease to the
of this
to March
for three additional
B
1915. See
Company paid
they
all or
rentals at the rate
to the effect
must be
in the lease
implied
erred
in
appellant’s
authorizing,
dig
therefor. At the same
appellants themselves;
At
and for this
repealed by
have
error
1829a and
said,
by paying
Moreover,
original
by appellants
Rehearing.
plaintiff’s
did receive without
$30
lease to
in
judgment,
any part
transaction,
the same
was
a recited considera-
lease that
trial,
plaintiff’s
and this seems to
with some of the
contrary,
reversed and the
placed upon
covering
excluding
pointed
it was
exception.
not verified
agree
General
effect that
company,
of 1913
21, 1918,
discussed,
third
1919, taking
an inference
we deem it
inwas
within
Gilman on
be entitled
his
the act
entitled to
rentals as
1829b),
conclusion
opposition
considera-
time,
error we
however,
lease on
with
the land
out the
rentals
express
implied
propor
Hitson
assign-
the re-
would,
whole.
awas
Daws,
W. T.
quar-
speci
(V.
fa'ct
We
ap
ap-
as
re-
following
1918, between W. Hitson and E. A.
part,
Kansas
party
lessee, covering 1,646% acres,
certain lease for
Tes.)
is recorded in
county
was made for term of five
executed
dollar and the mutual covenants of said lease
No.
vey
it is
the Prairie Oil
described as
them such default shall not
portionate part
fail or
ditions of
payment
support
or affect said
above described land held
event that
of
far as the interest of
the effect of
modification
volved,
its favor should
eration, however,
tend
would
agree
fault
acres until
clares that
extend the
well
to make
operated
Gilman lease should
“Agreement,
“Whereas,
“Whereas,
“Therefore,
“Witness
“It is
[16] It is
Volume
wife,
wife executed
agreement copied
year
opinion
E. A.
in said
Company
agreed
for one
except
of the second
the time within which the
alone. We
with
except
make
other than the
block No.
corporation
further
company
first
Eastland,
of'
as a consideration to
written
was a sufficient consideration
from all
said lease
Hitson,
its
between
March
as herein modified.
Cisco, Texas,
urged
nnder
default
and between said W.
rentals on the
said lease
the southwest
year
made
county
relieving
as herein modified.” The
company
agreement
above written.
Prairie
the lease records of
made this
proportion
& Gas
contention,
oil,
agreed
of the rents due from
following signatures
terms and
T.
consideration of one
page 280,
think the advance
be
named
it is
instead of one
therefore the
long
agreement:
lessors,
we have been unable
date
gas
state of
part,
24,
in so far
in
H. T. C. R.
hazard
parts
affirmed.
and state:
shall
Company
Oil
any assignee
a motion for
lease to Gilman
duly
drill a
as,a
and other
1919.
the Prairie Oil & Gas
Independence,
liable for its
&
“be
company,
intended to and
has
witnesseth:
21st
itself
of said
years,
& Gas
that such advance
stated.
parties
company
and R.
be and
of said
agreement
acknowledged
Texas,
quarter
June
“E.
“W. T. Hitson.
company
whole,
conditions
the Prairie
operate
of a default
shall
well
situated
day
as to 160
terms
hereto
expressly
A.
After
and,
purposes
it covers the
judgment
rental.
quarter,
Company,
remain the
assigned
and to ex
R.
Construing
F.
lease shall
remain the
concluding
HITSON GILMAN
on its 160
T.
we
Hitson.”
make due
of section
rehearing
said lease
to drill
to defeat If
company
assignees
Co. sur-
tl^e
Kansas,
was
Hitson,
March,
him or
consid
was
Hitson
county
($1.00)
in the
are of
"of the
&Oil
in
acres
first
only that
sub-
pro-
(220 S.W.)
this
and “lease
day
de
in
in
in
to did not
de
for reasons indicated in our
agreement
Empire
properly
were
nies were not
for
protected
tions of
court
Morgan,
tention,
phase
fense
decision
while the
present
nal
perhaps
any proof
purchased
valuable consideration
we
this
forded a consideration for an extension
sented
lease.
nally,
lessees innocent
foundation
valuable
proof
faith,
the defense to
And to do this was
kins
338.
subject,
fect or defense
allege,
were
Carnahan,
Deffenbaugh
eration and without notice
chased
place
tainly affected
trary
ation of the
duty
[17,18]
we were
are not
lease to
option given
urged
value,
point,
the Prairie Oil Gas
would
in
right,
amounted
in the lease
that the
be sufficient
think that
no
Moreover,
but also to
contract,”
not constitute
Nor would
in
Gas & Fuel
follow
unnecessarily
or other circumstances
authority
convey
amici
Edwards,
our
be made the basis of an
notice of
*8
consideration for its lease
The same
lease from the Hitsons
Messrs.
further than
such
Prairie
good
its lease on the 160
then the
rather
and 'hence
4 Tex. Civ.
want
of the attack
disposed
able brief with
extend the
Teel
et
such.
original opinion
plea,
case,
purchasers
in
curhe.
whatever
payment,
with
which
plea
Teel Case
lease to
faith for a valuable consid
al.,
in
to the lessees
purchasers
Gas
holding
this transaction alone can
as it is
legal title,
itself,
Case,
has
Wynn, Johnson,
the sublessees were cer
than
prove, that
think we
no more than an
Oil & Gas
it was
payment of
we should
holding,
Company
vice,
the form and
to the lower
notice
company
lease to
to revise our
noticed
&
been
It is
Tex.
and had
establish the defense.
single
of rentals
period within which
to relate
App.
then under
wrong.
to drill a
Fuel
showing
which forms the
designated
only necessary
lessees
presented
insisted that the
original opinion,
were,
as we
numerous
good
but on the con
wrong,
additional
insist
Gilman.
305, 23 W.
Company
Company
knowledge
these
supported
showing
any
say
the construe-
of this con
lease. Wat
acres
As to
the reason
and,
alleged
value
Bremer
should be
to Gilman
feel it
Vickers
in
back and
faith
ruling on
well,
and sub-
.the
Green
option
estoppel.
vital
that we
that we
rentals.
holding
compa
to this
at one
it had
for a
if we
alone
origi
origi
oper
Nor,
cita
good
and,
this
pre
pur
fact
was
did
our
af
de
&
(Tex.
REPORTER
220 SOUTHWESTERN
ju-
prayed
appeals.
for,
plaintiff
of other
the relief
leases
courts
tion
risdictions,
such
under discussion
Affirmed.
defense
See,
also,
unable
available.
find ourselves