*1 SOUTHWESTERN 239 648 court, appearing competent passed upon may bring and it of court 6 jurisdiction suit in some upon injury occurred, where the that the decision and award rendered ruling order, decision, and if he secures said a or correct, Board and Industrial Accident was sustaining or- such court in said holding that the court below in erred der, shall also be entitled to he ruling inor in whole or decision appellant bring did not suit within the the further prescribed by allowing appellee law, and in cent, upon as sum of twelve cent, damages attorney’s fee, 12 compensation in said so recovered striking will reform the there- attorney judgment, together s a reasonable with damages and from the sums allowed as attor- prosecution of such and coEection fee for claim. ney’s fees, judg- as thus reformed the provided Board things where the “It is further in all be ment will affirmed. against to an re- an association award has made an injured employee payment or quiring the monthly pay- any weekly or his beneficiaries of ments, act, such of this terms refuse, or RANGER CISCO CO. CONSOLI association should thereafter without justifiable cause, make DATED OIL to continue TEXAS.* CO. OF they mature, (No. promptly payments 1295.) as said the said beneficiaries, injured employee Texas. El Paso. Civil right death, have shaH in mature of his ease 16, 16, Merits, 1922. On the Feb. 1922. suit to institute claim and the entire April 13, jurisdiction any competent in thereon where amount court injury full c&wkey;387(3) to collect the occurred and error file —Failure cent, thereof, together appeal grounds twelve with bond within time held provided attorney’s fees, in penalties dismissing appeal. paragraph Suit foregoing section. the term of court at a case Where provisions brought under be February ap- 5, 1921, tried and the ended was county act, in in where where the any either section of the 1921, peal 1, was filed was not county occurred, the accident the Sayles’ filed Ann. Civ. St. time limited Vernon’s within reside, more of one or where claimants 1914, juris- 2084, to confer place residence such claimants appellate court, diction on the and the suit.” of the institution at the time dismissed. appellee claims under which This law to cent, damages entitled <&wkey;450(7) evidence held Evidence attorney’s are too —Parol this case facts fee. concerning ambiguity admissible brought plain by was cavil this suit contract. claimant, upon appellee, said final a drill an In suit for.breach for ap- Accident Board Industrial cision its a written contract stated that where enforcement, suit a but that this deep a well was setting purpose aside price per foot, provided that anoth- certain decision, article do it is authorized paid driEing through er does article and which said 5246— any though that specified, Eme, and no was appellant penalizing provide for manner testimony was to admissible, ambiguity the suit. event cast was the written the since was an Surety Greenwood, Judge contract as to the in Southern to which 1114, very to extend. Sup.) was a Nelson v. similar says: case, testimony <&wkey;l70(l) Contracts —Parol by parties penalties purpose to show construction like those here “The wrong. unambiguous punishment It can- written contract. for a civE volved not wrong exercise unconditional a testimony is ,Parol admissible to show statutory act .right. Section 5 placed on a the construction written contract right on interested conferred parties themselves where am- require for the de- suit to biguity instrument. arising question any not settled under termination <&wkey;109 4. Mines and minerals —Refusal by agreement. Ar- act emptory instruction not error where evidence 5246o, Sayles’ Statutes of ticle Vernon’s conflicting as to a contract supra]. right article [now oil well. penalty upon by imposing qualified was not for breach drEl an adverse In suit of contract to a determination the event of weH, positive pro refusing there was the claim de- oil evidence him. interpretation parties put until it was established and con as to on the contract to secure in error fendants court of plaintiffs jurisdiction, competent as to to be driEed unqualified- right plainly quantities, exercised a refusal statute; ly peremptory them instruction for defendant was conferred for the im- the basis be made not error. act cannot penalty.” position of a &wkey;al002 Appeal and error on con- —Verdict flicting assignment not disturbed. evidence sustained. must be Tliis having fully positive below case [7] The in case which A verdict there is interpretation developed fully novo, and con and| facts
de Xtey-Numbered topic and KEY-NUMBER other cases see jurisdiction 7, 1922. oí tor want June o£ error dismissed put cannot *2 Tex.) possible plaintiff terms of of pany. ant ages appellant. an County; Geo. L. thereon. held entitled Action Barker Alexander Damages &wkey;l20(3)— Texas In a suit for oil appeals. the amount the well, From be disturbed the contract. against & . drill at least entitled Barker, to secure & the Consolidated Baldwin, to recover RANGER breach of Davenport, Judge. on a contract to in the well expended by District defendant on the Ranger inoil Cisco, Party appeal. depth of Fort CISCO Court, plaintiff, paying had made Cisco as to the him under to a Oil contemplated, getting. appellee. Worth, quantities Company Eastland Oil expended contract defend- in dam- it im- depth Com- CO. v . CONSOLIDATED OIL CO. (239 ! the 3.W.) tract. penses ty agrees to the part hereby assigns the er said of the lime that said thereafter shall in this is not found in the second expense of the said diligence tional with drilling expended “(2) It is further “(4) “(3) square paying quantities. said paying quantities, top Party contract.” $50.00 of said drilling * * * excepts to reimburse second in the S. E. in the drilling drawing part agrees party well acres the dispatch per day, well, paying * pay to the and reserves 2½ lime. If to ** agreed first first in an effort to the well this well to first party the to continue the pipe. quantities corner said The * * * depth conveys part agrees part party has reached the * * [*] pay of the second payment being op- * * * party is a * * * party of said 10-aere herein . one-half the first 7½ producer acres, the of the first the second 1,700 $5.00 secure but if oil with due that aft- specified acres of the being par- part G49 feet top oil ruary 5,1921. for that reason it was forced to for. Hence this water, gas, to its sedeas) to have been filed therefore not within foot from order to confer nied that exceptions, general denial, Civ. Stat. for breach of contract Eastland appellant, dei>th and refused to day, ed; was entered for cial the further consideration of one-half of all an oil Cisco Oil oil or “(1) HARPER, The case was submitted to a Defendant answered [2] lesser drilled issues, as it The Consolidated damage, gas of law records show parts well That depth. 3,500 feet; it is so ordered. Edens v. Cleaves county, reason App.) 206 S. W. for the consideration of $2.59 was found Company agreed (Y. and other this action of the contract C. J. urged agreed S.) etc. jurisdiction upon appeal. Ranger Tex., to do [1] This case was here are: appeal must be dismiss- that the -in to drill the time by general paying quantities against for the amount sued Cisco Oil terma verdict Company sum of 3,500 .pertinent foot for its the well to a jury upon spe- fixed specially bills and ex- stop drilling * * ending feet unless Company, agreed 1, 1921; $7,892.57 filing Ranger to drill Yes. special (super- * failed court. Tex Rev. Feb at or refuse to less oil or would be drilled to the leged : into between lesser pense raneous verbal ment proposition tered into that drilled to the at a lesser issues, Answer Yes or No. Answer: No. thorized not the contract. time the second contract in evidence tract. be ascertained drilling the swer testimony is not admissible to show the con mitting and when the ambiguity struction .The first “That “(I) “(3) “ The The court submitted the [3] vary (2) gas pay Yes or No. We to drill to depth agreed upon depth? Was Did the Did was found in its witness agents, the defendant placed upon recognize gas contract was made that said well add depth.” proportional part pay assignment charges is that evidence of a themselves where there is no In this were found plaintiff plaintiff herein, Answer Yes or No. Answer: plaintiff, intention its notify agreement were answered as through Answer: proportional part well the contract as respect terms of written con- well depth and defendant to be through agreed orally 3,500 feet, law to the black lime? An- No.” is not agreement through is not following of paying quantities 3,500 drilled quantities 3,500 be that verbal error in that it would any time, parties may contract specified plaintiff instrument, indicated feet. expense contempo- unless of the ex- of its au- would written, entered special agree- lime? aat un- en- al- : other oases see and KEY-NUMBER in all and Indexes ,(Tex. 239 SOUTHWESTERN ap- presented by assignment proposition. rule can be made not think that we do support plicable us. The others ord rec- the contract before are without ; ap First, that the so is definite overruled. this contract *3 from a should drill stood, feet, which the well clearly provides for a fur it but appellee ther contracted thereafter, day $5 but MONDRAGON v. MONDRAGON et al.* to what further shall be drilled (No. 6703.) are contract is' far as words silent so concerned, clearly contract, when An- Texas. San whole, construed as a means that tonio. 1922. shall continue to such as in contem plation might be found. might approximate depth Frauds, exact or 103(1) Receipt 1. statute — specified so, extent, is sufficient to that of land. memorandum sale ambiguous, land, satisfy- so it became A memorandum for sale of ing may frauds, pleading allege prove the statute be in the form breach to receipt price. of a placed themselves McCaskey it at the time. Schrock et ux. <&wkey;l Frauds, 18(2) Description 2. statute of — (Tex. 418; A., App.) T. & S. Civ. by of land in memorandum aided of sale Ry. App.) F. v. Fielder 158 S. Co. Civ. strument referred therein to. plead W. 265. And it was not description of sale memorandum prove land, mistake or fraud. by a certain devised to vendor lot [4, assignments mother, be aided satisfy frauds, charging may, 5] error the statute by description in the will. refusing peremptory instruction for defend overruled, is.positive ant are because there <&wkey;5 &wkey;>47 Acknowledgment —Deeds —Ac- interpreta con as to the knowledgment and witnesses essential as parties put upon tion the the contract at parties. between carrying tíme drilled in Acknowledgment aof deed and subscrib- wit, purposes out se ing witnesses, provided by Rev. St. art. quantities. cure oil in such cases 1109, registration essential for are and notice only, validity this court cannot disturb the verdict. and not for of deed as between parties. again urged proof It is that damages, that the measure <&wkey;>98 prov- 4. Witnesses of deed —Execution is the amount recovered true meas- grantee’s by testimony. able thereof, ure and for these reasons the re- abrogation inhibiting parties Since of rule quested peremptory instruction testifying behalf, own their execution given grantor proved by by been for defendant grantee’s of deed testimony. witness for [6] A testified tire paid by plaintiff recovered amount &wkey;s45, signed May 5. Deeds third contract as the grantor’s person request; deed progressed, and there is no evidence grantor. ratified proposition contrary. The grantor A man- bound deed not is not the was rendered ually signed him if executed his name is germane person measure request, true any to name it third or if his assignment, signed person answer that the cost thereto third with- adopts request, subsequently out his it finishing as his own. suggested by appellants per foot, as the damages, apply could not true measure Frauds, 115(4) statute —Instrument case, for reason that the officers of wholly purchaser’s handwriting ineffectual. had An instrument is ineffectual as deed or a in the well so that could land, contract of sale view the statute further, making, by thus not drill (Rev. 1103, 3965) frauds St. arts. impossible acts, per including it, own formance. damages the contract signature, all of the vendor’s possible purchaser, acknowledged the least amount and not So by vendor, adopted by vendor otherwise appellee would be entitled to though purchaser he had authorized the actually expended. is the sign so to his name. Henry App.) Head v. Mull, 311; & Gas Co. v. Corbin Oil S.W. <&wkey;> performance Specific (2) Necessary — Ky. 763, W. 385. 97 S. proof parol convey contract to land statéd. questions this covers all We believe specific performance of a con- presented. The other raised are convey land, proof ruled tract to be contract must specific. properly distinct, clear, observations these wherever other cases see same KEY-NUMBER in ^z^For granted o£ May 24,