judgment, and conclusions of law ary tains recitals of issue recited was to banking the he considered tiff on said vented scribed.” nonpayment of such rental. Dennis on statement the 38 cluded terms said er came due ant 1919, fendant Hunter v. do ly, ly San 89 Tex. made the v. Kerr, (N. S.) 759, Trust Co. v. offered effect money statement forfeited. been was clusion cept the evidence and it [1] [2] It seems made, pay declares that Cyc. 317; Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Wimber Proctor, 172 S. a tender that would so, words, that 102 Tex. pay, party cаshier, 1, defendant, rental, had Saba lease on the rental passed rental became whether We within The bank was to an actual and formal 78 of the lease the rental 1919, but that he considered February default is so ordered. vital February 11, 1919, and defendant was pleadings due the that the predicated. lease, especially if such had the hours, 230, 34 and is Tex. cause remanded up are of the February 1, 1919, and that defend There was no theretofore made Lanius, Springs Land & Dive Stock pay but rental This issue of the is waived when 132 Am. St. and whether repudiates Kelly, issue, whom the which to prevented to and making noted, the lease 213, or until after 120 as the same from Mrs. findings S. W. cashier ready, right not 11, 1919, to not “the rental testified 202 W. 82 Tex. we have same, will not its cashier the trial 14 S. W. acres W. judgment ready, the 10-day period One paid including February 11, due, opinion apparently day, Mrs. pay S. to well settled that 639, money 996; already Rep. willing separately from the prevent a forfeiture was induced plаintiffs to cashier pay *1 HUNTER v. GULP PRODUCTION CO. of the of land above should within the as that date. Hill v. for another 677, within not seem to finding upon the to White, acting for terms tender, presented accept willing, by plaintiff 49 L. not she was fact the debtor White when reached judge, and, 566; so provided 852. Texas Bank & by due is due rendered would amount refused same; for the 18 S. tender of the doing, forfeited for and able -to sustained Question by plaintiff 23 herself findings R. effect that refusal on Halbert v. under the rental, reversed, Cyc. L. R. W. the con express A. already payment regular by Terrell in oth Febru- tender, receive which Ass’n, plain- offers trial; as it 201; 193; con- pre- (220 ! the she de- the bank of the rentals had the same be de in ac so by him A. s.w.) though paid, and can 2. as (Court surrender tion for the 3. Contracts tive in where the lease paid ground been 1. Mines and finished and tities, 4. Mines sustain a lessor to receive rentals for extensions of bank before a certain certain bank lessor, 5. Mines and minerals whole. chargeable bank to strument Nov. taining option for Leave Rehearing, ed see to surrender cient consideration. consideration. see ported rentals. extension rentals to ered as a whole. payment, though not credited. HUNTER Mines is any Mines and Contracts An An In A In In the Where oil lease every privilege granted.” by proper to sufficiently supported supported by provision on the 15, of Civil an action to cancel making other contract. unilateral, lessor option given lessor, that rental 1919. On the rentаl for extension deposited law extension interpretation credit on its evidence. promise. to File March v. — minerals <§=>58 <§=>143 minerals <§=>50 made the lessor time, minerals he enforced to provision Appeals in an oil lease to the effect that recited contract producing GULF in favor of be read (No. 9164.) deposited lessee. contracts, lease should be is oil promise “in money 6, 1920.) —Must for an evidence held sufficient t<5 — to his of the lease Motion for a sufficient considerаtion .binding on lessee in an oil lease after the well has been <§=>59 lease full PRODUCTION CO. Promisor’s motive not <§=>58 <§=>79(4) Payment bank the <§=¿>79(4) date, payment binding books, receiving and hold Texas. Ft. Worth. $100 by an oil is not supported by satisfaction the sum — extension had a-contract, defendant an oil —Oil Option given Finding the read lessor’s'agent his credit considered as is not promisor’s when should be to failure of the the consideration, oil lease —Bank lease on same a considera- Motion rentals lease lease, maker, extension support- effect properly on such same. $14.25, certain consid- the in- lessor, extent quan- suffi- in a 163 sup- and held les- mo- les- al- to if Digests Key-Numbered cases see KEY-NUMBER Indexes
{®=>For
*2
220 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
(Tex.
aggregate
years
(5)
date,
on or be-
On Motions
for
to the
for
and
Leave
five
from this
and
Rehearing.
operations
begun
if
Pile
Motion for
such
shall not be
expiration
years
(5)
fore the
this
of said five
Appeal
<g=3832(5) Appellate
and error
date,
wholly
then this lease shall
deter-
jurisdiction
court without
to determine issue mine.”
judgment.
оf fraud in
company
right
“If the-
shall avail itself of the
jurisdiction
appellate
court is without
granted
begin' operations
drilling
herein
and
of
determine,
to hear and
on motion for leave to
premises then,
a well on said
from and after
supplemental
rehearing,
file
sue of
motion for
the is-
beginning
operations,
company
of such
in
fraud
the rendition of the
required
any
shall not be
payments
gin
to make
further
by the trial court.
company
hereunder.
If the
shall be-
operations
drilling well,
suсh
of
it obli-
Appeal
Court,
gates
District
Eastland
prosecute
operations
itself to
such
County;
Burkett, Judge.
diligence.”
Jno.
reasonable
“If,
right hereby
in the exercise
of
against
Action
S. D. Hunter
the Gulf
ferred,
gas
paying quanti-
oil or
found
in
defend-,
Company.
Judgment
Production
land,
company
ties on said
then the
de-
shall
ant,
plaintiff appeals.
and
Affirmed.
royalty
lessors,
liver as
pense,
to said
free
all ex-
of
eighth
(*4)
one
of all the oil saved
Sayles
Sayles,
Eastland,
of
and David-
n producеd,
delivery
from that
such
to be made
Abilene,
appellant.
Hickman,
son &
pro-
either
tanks with connection
lessors
Greer,
Houston,
D. Edward
A. H. Car- vided,
any pipe
may
or into
line that
be con-
Gregg
rigan,
Palls,
of -Wichita
and John G.
well;
any
nected with the
and
well on said
Hardwicke,
Worth,
and R. E.
both of Pt.
for premises produces gas
paying quantities,
appellee.
gas
premises
such
is used or marketed off the
company,
then the said lessors shall be
paid at the
($100.00)
rate of one
July
hundred
dol-
DUNKLIN,
13, 1918, S. D.
J. On
per year
every
well,
lars
for each and
such
such
Layfield
acquired
wife
Hunter
from R.
J.
payments to be made at the end
each
gas
an oil and
57 acres of land out
lease on
year.”
Tinsley survey,
in East-
of the James
situated
“It
gas
is further
that if oil or
1916, prior
county.
On December
quantities
other
found,
minerals in
lease, Layfield and wife
date of that
company,
assigns
and the
its successors or
here-
under,
desire to
gas
they
on the
oil and
had executed an
should conclude that it or
.lеase
do not
operate longer
.Company.
under this
then
Production
to' the Gulf
same land
right
is conferred to surrender the same
fee-simple
Layfield
title
owned
and wife
upon payment
($100.00)
of one hundred
dollars
leases was ex-
of said
to the land when each
lessors,
right
and such
of surrender shall
against
instituted this suit
Hunter
ecuted.
privilege
also
removing
confer the
from said
Company
to cancel
the Gulf Production
premises any
material
thereon
company,
given
from a
to that
lease so
judgment
company,
assigns.”
its successors and
sought
company
denying
day paid
him the relief
“The
has this
to the said
lessors
($14.25)
the sum of fourteen and
appealed.
has
25/100
receipt
dollars,
hereby
whereof is
acknowl-
by Layfield and
executed
The instrument
edged,
payment
and which
in full
gave
Company
to the Gulf Production
wife
any
every right
privilege
sátisfaction of
grantee,
“the
is therein called
granted hereby, including
right
to extend
company,”
assigns,
successors and
ex-
period
exploration
for the
land.”
clusive lease
the land
copied
It is insisted
purpose
above,
that the
mining
clause
oil, gas,
the same for
giving
option
the lessee the
minerals, and, among
others,
surrender
it con-
paying quantities
lease after oil in
following provisions;
has been
tained the
discovered, upon
to the lessor
granted
expressly
company
“There is
$100,
renders the lease “unilateral”
right
expiration
the
twelve
at
time before the
character,
and therеfore
'invalid because
begin opera-
from this
date
^months
wqnting
drilling
gas
mutuality,
lacking
tions for the
and hence
of well for oil or
suf-
premises,
right
on said
and also the
to exten-
consideration, passing
ficient
begin
operations,
of time in
sions
for the successive
which to
support it.
periods
(6) months,
six
[1] We are unable to concur in that con
company shall,
condition that the
on or before tention.
It cannot be denied
sur
day
respective
pe-
first
each
six months
gives
render
clаuse
deposit
lessors,
riod
R.
J.
it,
thereby
to surrender
Layfield
State
First
Bank of East-
land, Texas,
obligations
release itself
the sum
seven
from all
further
13/100
($7.13): Provided,
.such
shall
words,
clearly ap
thereunder.
In other
day
not be
such
on such
mine;
before the first
made
of each pears
given
option-to
lessee
respective
period,
six months
then and
any time,
thereby
surrender the lease at
to be
default,
wholly
lease shall
this
deter-
discharged
obligations
from further
provided, further,
these suc-
thereunder, or
in full
to continue it
force and
periods
cessive
which the
be ac-
a
specified, by comply
effect for the full term
quired
begin
operations
well
gas,
provisions
ing
drilling,
with the
or in
in search of oil
shall not
lieu
exceed
<@=»For
Key-Numbered Digests
other cases see
and Indexes
KEY-NUMBER
PRODUCTION
v. GULF
CO.
HUNTER
16o
(220 S.W.)
fraud, accident,
by paying
mistake,
the sum
nor
the lessor
thereof
by pleading
semiannually,
to be made
contention
each
succeeding proof
truly
beginning
next
instrument
speak
the full
period.
oil is
contract of the
And even
six months’
thereto.
*3
legal
question, then,
paying quantities,
The
is one of
in
construc
consideration
in
found
plain unambiguous
$100,
a
of
tion of
In
contract.
further
sum
of the
of the
Quebe G.,
Ry. Co.,
6,
option,
given
right,
v.
& F.
98
81
C.
S.
Tex.
is
at
lessee
the
the
20,
734,
545,
lease,
66
A.
4
L. R.
Ann. Cas.
the
the well 'and surrender
abandon
it was held
a
premises
that
consideration of one dol
all its cas
to remove
the
and
ings
legal consideration,
thereon,
lar was a
placed
valuable and
or
and other mаterials
and, although
support
small, was sufficient to
force. But
is
in full
it
to continue
damages resulting
a contract of
contract, although
settlement for
an
that
settled
well
personal
injuries
from
ployé
maker,
sustained
an em-
binding upon
if it is
unilateral,
the
is
railway company
of the
in
paid;
while
the
supported
a
consideration
sufficient
discharge
employment.
of
the
of
duties
supported
enforced to
it can be
so
when
Pipe
In
the case of National Oil
Line Co. v.
contrаct. Na
other
extent as
the same
979,
Teel,
591,
an
95 Tex.
68 S. W.
there is
Teel,
Pipe
v.
95 Tex.
Oil &
Line Co.
tional
also,
See,
intimation to
same effect.
the
Contracts,
979;
591,
on
§
Elliott
W.
1
68 S.
Fordyce
Woodrum,
Ass’n v.
188
Pierce
Oil
Contracts,
2310;
on
§
3 Elliott
R. C.
Contracts,
3849,
In
on
§
S.
Elliott
W.
pp. 686,
In
the text
§§
L.
93 and
last
following
the
is said:
pointed
it
the term “mu
cited
is
out
tuality,”
valuable, though
of
used in
discussion
the law
the
“A
be
it
consideration
adequate.
only
of
contracts,
properly applicable
not
The existence
a sufficient
is
is
when
of
frequently important in
consideration is
deter-
than
mu
is no other
there
consideration
the
grantor
mining
on
there was fraud
the
whether
promises
parties,
ele
tual
the
the
inadequacy
more
or his creditors. But
sideration,
of con-
mutuality,
proper meaning of
in the
ment
fraud,
no
on
when there is
affords
promise
term,
is
the
the
not essential
ground
voiding
a deed.”
supported by
agreement
a valuable
is
consid
Equity'Jurisprudence,
2In
Pom.
the
§
already paid.
inAnd
this connection
eration
following is said:
effect,
said,
further
in
(cid:127)it
is
reason
many
of a failure
this distinction
par-
observe
“The rule is well settled that where the
decisions
situation to
the
tend to confuse and
ties were both
pendent
a
form an inde-
mislead
judgment concerning
transaction,
the
the reader.
knowingly
intentionally,
mere in-
acted
Appellant
insists, further,
the
sum of
adequacy
price
subject-matter,
in the
the
stipulated
$100,
paragraph
in the
of the lease unaccompanied by
inequitable incidents,
other
quoted above,
law,
should,
aas
ground
is never of
ing
parties,
sufficient
cancel-
itself a
only,
construed as a
be
nominal consideration
executory
the
an
executed
insignificant,
painly
because it
not
having
in the situation
tire
sufficiently
adequate
support ability
so,
valuable
exercised their
to do
own indo-
judgment'as
subject-
pendént
option given
the value of
the
the lessee to- surrender
equity
matter, courts
should not
will not
lease,
casing
and withdraw and remove
In
interfere with
valuаtion.
some of
thereby destroy it,
well,
well
inadequacy,
decisions,
earlier
mere
either in the
producing
pay-
has been finished and
ing quantities.
price
subject-matter,
inor
value of the
noted,
that in
It will be
might
hardship,
held to be
sufficient
last-quoted paragraph of the lease the sum
specific
executory
performance
defeat the
of the
$14.25
the lessor
the lessee
up
contract when set
as a defense.
doc-
acknowledged
trine, however,
is recited and
tо be “in full
is now settled
inequality
mere inade-
quacy
subject-matter
refusing
is,
every privilege
in value between the
grant-
satisfaction
—that
price
ground
not a
privileges granted
—is
ed.”
of the
One
remedy
specific performance;
surrendering
lessee was
lease and
order,
inadequacy
defense,
ei-
must
removing
placed
materials
the land
accompanied by
inequitable in-
ther
be
privilege
the lessee. But for the
last men-
gross
be
as to
cidents must
so
show fraud.”
tioned,
it
further
anоther
paragraph quoted,
[2,
plain
unambigu
3]
should
In
view
language
lease,
of $100.
additional
Pre- ous
effect that
sumably,
option given
that additional consideration was the
the lessee to surrender it was
stipulated
destroy
pos-
force
in consideration of the
at
executed,
sible claim
as the lessee was under the time the instrument was
implied obligation
proceed
pro-
sum
further
after oil
discovery
paying quantities,
of oil
duction
after the
should
found
paying quantities,
original
аny pleading
consideration the absence of
or evidence to
support
agreement
not
would
to surrender
not
show that such was
parties,
though
discovery,
after such
even
there is no room for
contention
support
right prior
purpose
sufficient
be held
that as
evident
developed
pro
thereto.
lessor to have
for oil
stipulations
duction,
This
a suit
the rescission of
for oil
(Tex.
220 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
n kept
only
lease,
should be construed
sideration which could
that,
real and
fоr each
as the
to show that such a
support
together
advice,
and letter of
with the amount of
paid,
out,.and
to
of con-
rent
so
as the lessee
not bind itself
drill
did
was mailed
that the book
kept
well,
controversy
for lack
the lease was void
lease in
showed
th^
evidence,
sideration. Furthermore:'
such a check.
That
connection
necessary
with other circumstances
promisor’s
contracts,
“In the law of
mo
noted,
was sufficient to
promise
making
tive in
tion for the
not a considera
Olemenger Flesher,
now
promise.”
p. 653,
under discussion.
v.
R.
L.
6 C.
66.§
in favor of all
then would
mentioned
the let
fol
yet
that,
draft,
accepting
of advice received with
it could be said
in
the
ters
appellee’s agent
Falls,
reg
in Wichita
the bank acted as
who
lessee,
bank,
letter to the
the same could be
istered the
it
out such a
testified
the
sor
thе les
custom,
himself,
payments
sending
uniform
had been
made to
draft,
go
directly,
over his
which would be a
books and him
reductio ad
place
separate
Wimberly,
mark on the
Texas Co.v.
a. check
record
absurdum.
286; Beatty