Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Bratton

,(Tex. 239 SOUTHWESTERN up judgments February, cannot the with taken reverse of lower courts. the matter was 1st frequently Webb, Art, It Stovall, has erroneous associates held an and. their law, upon undisputed They conclusion of to furnish based Wichita Falls. declined presents ap rig facts, and had the Millers fundamental install error the standard until (cid:127) pro- pellate acquired Brew Then it was court. Carroll the lease. v. Evansville posed ing organize (Tex. corporation, and, App.) in con- Association Civ. 179 S. W. a acquire county parties, Building Bexar Association New nection more v. with Carson (Tex. App.) acreage, proceeds man ef Civ. S. 25 W. 461. with Supreme holding standard fect of derived from sale stock the Court’s rig Haley, inabil- Walker Tex. could be installed. Because of the S. W. county judge’s ity parties is upon undisputed error, the trial of law of Rorex and other Carson conclusion acreage presents additional facts fundamental obtain locality, incorporate put where such conclusion is into effect scheme to aban- by directing doned, organize Norvell-Shapleigh proposed a and it was a verdict. joint-stock App.) company, powers Lumpkin Hdwe. Co. with the same Civ. originally which in W. 1194. were intended to be vested S. failed, corporation. We This scheme also have not held that failure immediately Miller, Jr., appeared provided pay A. Millers to the rental Will original upon Seigfried, the scene was a The transac- with forfeiture. made, whom a the tion has for- contract was set not reached the state where a out hold, original negotia- opinion. During feiture could ever, declared. how- all of these We do pay their tions drilling failure to or tender the common consent the actual persuasive fact, tending strongly suspended. is rentals a they they negotiations to show that understood in The above-mentioned possession entitled to stigated of, by, for the benefit and were rights in them. thereunder had vested Millers, inequitable to it hold and would be rehearing motion for is overruled. acquiescence appellees in such that the support negotiations, or even their active schemes, be con or all contract, strued as waiver of the escrow a either as a matter of fact or law. We think PACIFIC TEXAS COAL OIL& CO. it should rather an be construed as effort 9662.) (No. BRATTON. comply to enable the Millers to (Court Appeals of Civil of Texas. through pro Worth. parties, contract tect Fort Rehearing June 1921. Denied rights possible them their under 24, 1921.) Dec. original Nothing the that is clearer than Millers and those associated with <S=>78(2) seek- Mines —Lessor understood, Webb, them, at least Meade required to cancel lease held rig 16th, March that a standard until by express language thereto prem eventually upon clearly implied. have to be erected the' words original opinion, is ises. As. of an Where the cancellation oil lease- expected express sought lessor a an waiver. The is forfeiture of all no above-quoted money amount of work and benefits from vast no intent on shows effort, expended in an but, part waive, con one to on the develop in the fruits of which de- clearly trary, shows that the Millers and . share, velopment lessor would lessor be en- with them understood that those connected must titled to show his thereto relief it We have searched been waived. language express im- words act of the the record vain discover plied therefrom. them, Deahls, which amounts to or either n =^78(2) Mines and minerals all- —Where estoppel, is and the record barren paid, rentals of well and discov- held moving to them would appel consideration support necessary ery only as basis for contin- agreement to waive. of lease. uance that, since there no attack lants insist made necessary all Where lease- finding and no the court’s cross- five-year period are as- appellees, assignment but rather an provided therein, drilling a finding by appellees that admission necessary only a basis of oil is for its by testimony, supported right this has no court period pursuant after such tinuance lease- case; phase discovery. the provision this to review in case of therefor con otherwise. The court’s hold authorities to- Mines and minerals held <®=»75—Lessee findings law, clusions of based oil within literal exact have discovered court; fact, are in effect provision continuance- practically and, facts are undis where of lease. here, any issue, puted upon we them find appears by testimony that one Where cannot this court review to hold that premises 140 barrels on leased well in a falling judge upon'said stopped by casing trial conclusions days reverse the few holding appellate capable pro- it, courts and that was effect Digests, Indexes (gsjFor other oases see KEY-NUMBER in Xox.) & OIL COAE CO. v. BRATTON PACIFIC TEXAS 68i> S.W.) (239 ! Company gas of per day, on a tract barrels oil and lease and that 5 during barrels stopped Stephens county. lessor when another recited in The lease bailed from land were lease, it was terminate the notice to work a cash consideration of and con- $207.75 the lit- oil within “discovered” lessee held stipulation a tained continue should provi- in a term and exact eral years in force for a of five con- in that event. the lease for continuance sion pay dition that should an annual lessee @=>78(1) Discovery of ground rental, advance, $207.75; in and minerals 4. Mines — predicate for con- provided lease in for oil payment first to be made on or before the unambiguous, so that clear and held tinuance beginning year, of the second the re- and quantities be paying could not production in maining payments sucessively to be on made implied as a substitute. year beginning or before the of each there- predicate continuation for the The stip- after. The lease contained this further ulation; five-year period, stated a oil lease after the such, “discovery” clear and of oil unambiguous, and “the agreed parties “It is further between the implied read and paying quantities” could be gas, petroleum, hereto that in case either coal therefor. aas substitute into the lease or other mineral substances are on premises said that this lease should continue @=75 continu- minerals Mines and —Under long any pro- and effect so of these is lease, dur- held ance clause paying quantities.” duced prospects fur- for ing reasonable with term development lessee entitled successful ther work after to continue time a reasonable stipulated The lease further that it should term. assignable subject part, whole inor years, providing that for five lease Under stipulations. its conditions and the lease in case oil is purchased H. J. title pay- long oil is in force as tinue Nolan, lessor, from W. H. thereof instituted this and as owner discovery during quantities, against prospects de- suit the Texas successful of further reasonable velopment Company, a reasonable entitled the lessee Pacific &Coal Oil successor development to continue Company, original time within & Pacific Coal les- Texas the term. work see, persons claiming an and other land, said lease and title said stopping @=>75 minerals 6. Mines —Lessor lease, and, complain from award- cancel ing plaintiff entitled of term not end work at so as to relief, efforts continue the defendant Texas did not Company lease. Pacific Coal & Oil and its codefend- stops the end of at ant, lessor prosecuted ap- Where G. W. this opera- prevents further thereafter term tions, peal. complain- lessee did he cannot years’ period provided The for paying produce to to his efforts expired midnight January lease at provision quantities pursuant for con- grounds alleged plaintiff’s pe- tinuance tition for a follows; cancellation of @=>78(7) held Mines and —Evidence good was faith believed he show represents quantities “Plaintiff further paying that neither the producing intend- oil in Texas production. defendant the Pacific & Coal Oil Com- ed increase any pany, ural it, producing nor one for nat- that, lessor held Evidence gas, petroleum coal, or other mineral sub- work, good stopped faith believed quantities stances in from said land being expiration time of prospects in- for further reasonable represents that neither the defendant the Tex- crease, intended faith he likewise Company, any as Pacific Coal & Oil nor one work. produced any it, for has ever of the above-de- Court, Stephens any District Appeal scribed minerals or other minerals from quantities; Judge. Ely, said land ther fur- County; R.W. expira- represents that at the time of the -Bratton J. cancel Suit tion and termination of said lease neither the Com- & Oil Pacific Coal defendant, any pro- it, nor one for said ducing plaintiff, defend- for pany. From above-described minerals rendered. appeals. Reversed any quantities whatever; ant from said land plaintiff fendant the nor (cid:127) represents further that neither the de Stephenville, Oxford, and John W. J. Texas Pacific & Oil Coal Powell, of Fort both W. B. Hancock it, one else has oil or appellant. Worth, for minerals, above-described Breckenridge, Evans, B. R. Cou- F. John any quantities at 12 minerals, from said land Hill, Strawn, Jr., sins, of Brecken- J. W. night January 17, since Cockrell, Abilene, Cox, ridge, L. expiration Ben o’clock, the time of of said appellee. O’Donnell, Dallas, & reason of facts McBride above expired alleged, and become force has terminated and said lease January DUNKLIN, H.W. On void, null and and of Coal Pacific & to the Texas Nolan executed and effect.” Digests and Indexes in all KEY-NTJMBER other oases same see

@=>For 239 S.W.—44 239 SOL'THWESTERN endeavoring it. all of the necessary drillers to clean record shows doing provided work in so interfered with pressure well. At five considerable alive for the full necessity midnight January years, while the without 1919, year wells, engaged, paid. Early the work on in drillers were the so were stopped by plaintiff began finished the well was Bratton, lessee it in a well on the land the year. May well That who or June that notified them that the of January 3,800 depth Thereafter, feet. had of terminated. on was drilled to a injunction, 19th, plaintiff Oil well sued out a of was the to extent writ the agent by lasting heads, minutes which on lessee’s on that each, a few served the it flowed was the. operations day, restraining pumped. following then it was It was tank, from the on said lease. with a the flow nected special unexpect- Owing following is- were some the well went the into tank. accidents, casing jury, losing find- sues submitted to the with their the the ed as ings thereon, well, fishing therefor, necessitating was to wit: production a cessation of for several months. “Question paying quantities 1. Was oil in But the lessee continued work on the well discovered well No. 1? up Decem- to overcome the obstructions “Question many oil, 2. How if barrels of ber, flow, 1919. After weE ceased the any, produced were from well 1?No. Answer installed, by pump oil was means by stating figures barrels, the number of if produced was well short any, for a produced. the Answer: 100 barrels. period “Question you questions of time. That was known well 3. If answer 1 and produced Calvert, superin- 2 that oil was discovered and M. well No. 1. V. tendent of the district 1, question, well No. then answer this did the lessee, follows: testified as Texas Pacific Coal & Oil after said pumping “When we were well No. I said discovery production, diligently operate day pumped barrels, and that the first we 116 2? well the of well No. An- day, eight pumping, pump- hours’ next diligence. swer: No. 1 did due not use No. day pumped ed 16 next we barrels. The twelve yes. pumped hours and barrels.” 8 “Question paying oil Was discovered in midnight in well No. 2 before He further testified: January 18, 1920? Answer: No. “Question many oil, if 5. How barrels my judgment “It is that that well could be any, produced from well 2?No. Answer paying amade well had we been able to have by any. stating number, if Answer: Five gone well; bottom that I it consider barrels. paying average would wells been have well. The “Question many oil, 6. How barrels of country produce neighbor- that in the any, standing in No. 2 well after it was day. per is, hood of 55 barrels That after prior midnight January and on and shot they got over the flush and settle Twenty-five 18, 1920. Answer: barrels.” production; is, they develop down into rels of oil after pumping That well. well 140-bar- made according my calculation. We Appellee has cited several of oth decisions pumped that much oil and it saved was leases, stipulating construing er states my To the best of the tank. oil at recollection they period for a run certain thereafter of time per time was It $3 worth barrel. longer “and much as oil and pump men to run this took two hours the first 24 or, paying quantities”; be found in shall witnesses, it run. We other long “so thereafter oil or shall be men, gave experienced opin- it who as their paying quantities.” According produced in that the discovered well No. ion 1 was decisions, quantities.” paying in order to to those the stated of time it nec According quan wit- essary other that oil plaintiff, keeping nesses, instance; who in close tities in the first and that it be. 1, expressed No. touch satisfaction quantities, in the second being good well, producing it as as instance, within of time fixed day, per following barrels much as 65 but that it had of the lease. the duration are stopped up casing by appellee: which had cited some of the decisions dropped Logan, into it. v.Co. 69 Ohio St. Murdock-West began (Supreme also Ohio); another well on N. E. 984 Court Chan 69 controversy part Co., ey App. 193, land in the first & Oil Ind. 69 v. Ohio I. 32 November, 477; 1919. That well was known as Northwestern Ohio Natural N. E. Gas depth Tiffin, City well No. and was drilled to a 59 Ohio St. 54 N. E. Co. 3,603 feet, nitrogly- Pennsylvania George. it was shot with Western Gas Co. v. oil, cerine in order to Atl. evi Those cases 161 Pa. January 18, upon theory dently proceed o’clock the afternoon of the lan shot, began necessarily implies guage quoted as it was As soon bailing so that oil drillers paying quantities, and bailed several barrels of it discovered in must be emptied paying quantities, during into the tank. which were The well swabbing out, cleaning fixed needed the term the lease. 179 Pac. ent suit: reap lieve Roach v. Junction the construction ther successful Co. v. not be within term “discovered.” sis for a Xjetition amount those terms of the ties, views, es with W. Va. Co. doubted that jilaintiff tion er the termination of covered” Tex. a substitute icate discovery ing namely, of said wells is the ture of from a reasonable ties, common the effort guage plied In order expended lease stated cannot be quantities,” Tex.) lease had Co. of which clearly Nor [6] It ^[5] [1] The [4] The [2, is incumbent incurred, plaintiff (Tex. five been oil was not “discovered profit 90, 3] some cited stated, Having the vast therefrom. Greenleaf, 84 W. Va. was there and some Snodgrass, the L. A. As five is to be be a reasonable of oil 216 S. fairness that oil develop did not “the years’ continuation paid, within the five Civ. of oil was with reasonable cancellation predicate implied forfeiture R. five reward Eastern Oil Co. to the by appellant, exact all years’ period, entitle for, simply within the allegation 64 S. E. which would also length the lessee development App.) five actually the W. years. amount period stated development, noted that (N. thereto base any allegation plaintiff. 385; considered, & Oil Gas Co. is clear leases years’ period Decker present him to qualification for a 223 S. W. TEXAS PACIFIC of time within which to to them, controversy in paying quantities necessary S.) justice, literal W. Va. 836; the five the labor and necessary the read that oil Especially of work discovery McCallister 848; construction of the init the lease after continuation accord following another words years’ period, work in order five prospects suit expected benefits And such we v. South similar least, years’ Ohio Fuel Oil years’ period. from Kirlicks, unambiguous. Coulehan, relief his only years’ lessee, well and of, express having the lease to cancella (Okl. from each entitled cannot S. E. oil within the' lessee, sought Penn. Oil predicate, pleadings plaintiff’s 76 attended involved terms to authori and aft- expens oil dur quanti sought, period, money period share. fruits quan- S. could these COAL & OIL CO. BRATTON pred a ba Sup.) pres “dis been fur lan (239 Í im 110 the the the na the the the be E. 65 be :.w.) hearing, ed out that case dered him in yet [officially] trial versy, well No. with reasonable briefly lessee, evidence seems the lessee further allegations 477. Nor did lation ther what is controversy, produce oil thereafter. opinion being produced in at abandoned the lease. tities,” paying quantities during work on the the quantities error 139 La. nation of tion injunction period, erations tiff. years’ struction to comply Co. quired, quantities, (decided April 16, show, tities, according terminated, Gas Trust For In the After ^[7] January 18, 1920, the five the time appellee of Texas Under refused; court, canceling denying as words, before is was based allegation quantities,” within and that the exercise with the operations increase in by reversed, we overlooked On Motion 1099, the opinion reasons to the terms of might Civ. immediately following v.Co. likewise, he is in no but to reasonably expired, years’ period, it in even J. Associate. Justice Buck it is not plaintiff stopped lease be our views of the five his Pacific Coal Oil Co. Bruce plaintiff’s published, in which it meant his H, Leonard v. Busch-Everett decision of this court App.) did not to establish 72 South. given been forbidden expression expiration lessee, to unnecessary force after the termination though Ink, requirement years’ noted, produce prayer of this cause Bratton and the at himself 1921) by and thereafter paying quantities the lessee had oil. 223 W. discover by 12 applied believed that oil was 163 Ind. did the to the instrument years’ good good faith, position McCallister the contention Rehearing. petition very o’clockon the 233 S. W. the S. But production, & tend lessee, by action for be determined 749; conclusively means in stopped judgment faith. And the prospects for a cancellation. issues expression, minute period, lease¡ to discuss to the the lease had the five we will refer 174, oil in by at 859, proper contain period. is here ren- Consumers’ further show, the prevented the appellant efforts to complain failed intended v. Texas 71 is between original produc writ of writ the five but further contro- paying, cancel- termi- years’ point in an plain- work. quan- N. E. order night time that fur con Co., up- “in op- In SOUTHWESTERN CTeix. (cid:127)G92 'Watson, George is attention expressed, X to which our the conditions therein one-eighth now called motion for rehear- and Watson’s of such minerals had ing, disposed and those issues will now be of. reserved Nolan. One-fourth of that one-eighth, together Brat- W. H. of H. Nolan was J. source with one-fourth of the by royalties ton’s title and of the title claimed also to accrue under the of course George to belonged In from Nolan J. Watson. the deed to Bratton. But of such one-half royalties belong H. title land in contro- J. Bratton to the to Watson. versy conveyed, Accordingly, but that deed the trial exception awas reservation from the against court in favor of appellee Bratton conveyance George of “an undivided three-fourths of J. Watson for title land in one-eighth controversy. an natural eral described tract conveyed only hereby undivided and to of .the reformed to the ex- gas, petroleum min- and other tent that title to an in- undivided one-half substances, in, one-eighth on and above- oil, gas, under said terest in and to and other minerals of all the of land heretofore sold under the land conveyed controversy me.” That deed hereby decreed to be vested Bratton; appellee appellant George title claimed J. H. in- J. as an words, there- never necessarily cident and to that attached after, any time, acquired or at title is decreed excepted reserved and Bratton, so X H. said Watson is entitled deed, said deed. After execution ceive an undivided half interest in and convey- royalties W. H. Nolan two deeds executed all Coal & Oil to of which the lessee Pacific Texas Watson, George dated ance to the first Company agreed contracted and April 29, 1918,by the terms of Watson which lessor, Nolan, by to its H.W. virtue pay/ acquired “an undivided one-half interest company the terms the lease to that royalties other and all the opinion upon ferred to and described in the minerals in and the land” controver- original Subject under hearing. interest so sy. September 23, 1919, executed Nolan subject On decreed in Watson and to the lease Watson, mentioned, another deed to the terms and as above Bratton between conveyed judgment which he “án undivided Watson in favor of Brat- respects oil, gas ton is in all other one-half all of the interest affirmed. as between Bratton and land” and other minerals in and under the prosecute other defendants who did not the an together controversy, with “the appeal is left undisturbed. grantee privilege participate in all appellee The motion of X H. for Bratton may sums as and all holders rehearing appellant rentals, of leases for for renew- n Company duly Pacific Coal & Oil has been als, extensions, bonuses, and the same considered and is overruled. oil, gas leases hereafter made purposes.” other minerals mineral That given deed a recital it was 'contained lieu the former deed Watson. Thus the record shows title Watson undivid- ed one-half interest all the natural DEGENHARDT et al. v. JOPLIN et al.* gas, oil, petroleum, other mineral sub- (No. 9728.) in, on, stances under land contro- (Court Appeals of Civil of Texas. versy. Fort The fact that the first deed to Watson Rehearing Worth. Feb. conveyance only was a one-half 11, 1922.) Denied March n andto royalties oil, gas, all the other minerals in makes no differ- Only sustaining n =>400— 1. Wills ence, acquired since he afterwards the same verdict considered. interest tinguished appeal as dis- themselves On contestants, from a royalty. probate from mere in tal action to And set aside of will for men- incapacity influence, judg- acquired and undue meantime Bratton had not that in- facts, ment will be sustained terest, acquired nor has he interest at rejecting all evidencefavorable to the contest- Appellee time. J. H. Bratton was considering ees and the evidence sustain- suit, which was a suit verdict, the verdict could have been trespass try against Watson, title as and reasonably jury upon reached an unbiased him burden show title to weight testimony; the credibility the interest which vested Watson being exclusively of witnesses plain- jury. Watson’s second deed. This burden wholly discharge. tiff failed Unjust regarded Wills wills <®=^82— executed, When the deed to suspicion. already outstanding there was to the partial unjust A will in its Texas Pacific Goal & Oil provisions, absurd, devoid natural seven-eighths the and other minerals ha!dbeen terms of duty hearty affection, support finds conveyed courts, and, though absolutely void, Digests other cases see in all <@=s>For KEY-NUMBER and Indexes jurisdiction April 19, o£ dismissed for want *Writ error

Case Details

Case Name: Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Bratton

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jun 18, 1921

Citation: 239 S.W. 688

Docket Number: No. 9662.

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.