OPINION OF THE COURT.
This case arose out of the following facts: Some оf the owners of land in the vicinity of Dayton, N. M., desiring to have tests made to find out whether or not oil or gas existed m paying quantities in that locality, agreed to execute оil and gas leases to S. G. Humphreys. The appellee, Elizabeth Roberts, owned land in this vicinity, and on August 15, 1916, made an oil and gas lease on her property to said Humphreys. As shown by the testimony and found as facts by the' court, she was at thаt time a nonresident of New Mexico. The negotiations which were preliminary to her signing the lease were сarried on by correspondence between her and E. S. Wallace, who was the agent of S. G. Humphreys and who was also secretary of the committee having charge of the negotiations to secure the leаses and let the contract for drilling. The correspondence shows that Per lease was to be put in esсrow in the First State Bank & Trust Company of Artesia and was not to be placed of record until certain development work was done. It was made a condition that if the development work was not done, the lease was to be returned. The committee made several аttempts to have wells drilled and oil developed, but thоse with whom they contracted failed to carry out thеir contracts. Subsequently in order to induce other operators to develop oil and gas upon said property, and as a condition precedent without which the operators would not start work, the leasеs, including that of the appellee, Roberts, were assigned to appellant Faris and placed of record. Appellee was not consulted as to this сhange in the agreement and and did not consent to the placing of her lease upon record. The appellee, plaintiff below, sought to have the lеase declared null and void and canceled оn the records of Eddy county. The trial court gave her judgment as prayed for, and the defendant Faris appеals to this court.
Appellant assigns nine errors, relying prinсipally upon the following: That the court found the lease was not delivered, and that the court went outside оf the pleadings to make said finding. It is only necessary to state at this time that the record amply sustains the finding that the lеase was delivered in escrow, and that the conditiоns of the escrow, upon the fulfillment of which it was to be recorded, were not complied with. The allegatiоns in the complaint were sufficient, together with the evidеnce received in support of them, to sustain the finding of the court in this respect.
The other assignments of' error relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, but a reading of the transcript of record shows that such assignments are without merit and need not be considered.
The case is therefore affirmd; and it is so ordered.