Wisconsin-Texas Oil Co v. Clutter

OIL CO. v. CLUTTER Tex.) WtóCONSIN-TEXAS (258 S.W.) by positive cir- letter other fact wrote D. Horne “When Edwin evidence, as the O. cumstantial Eebruary 18, 1918, addressed dated * testamentary machinery, to to Horne, same to he intend did is, dec- character; to as a to be looked in laration or direction ultimately relinquish all property intention to in his to how ” premises. interest ‘Yes’or ‘No.’ at his death? should ror. The ten about the is was not court’s lawful lawful was offered evidence bating same. quested by finding. tion of was The court found record show reversible with WISCONSIN-TEXAS been in the presented fairly appellants, We have age complete. (4) Appellants (5) Appellants reference supported jury age age, judgment of failure found to be shows that shown that no error when he executed fact, and, and do them. answered in evidence carefully deceased TER. navy same time as the in favor of error. The years. assignments presented for a number In this not think contend (No. in the trial OIL CO. examined by the court was testamentary another evidence, jury, and matter 7055.)* the testator writing trial deceased testator question “Yes.”' there is no issue involved supports deceased having al. v. CLUT letter writ proponents, will. in that of them was of stated years. entire, letter been pro- had full re er af- 4. part gas found that lessee had 5. Mines and of the leased 6. Mines but is determinable land on which lessee to ed for a quired by 7. ure to entitled upon on such canceled on specific performance. titled to tract because of abandonment. lease lessee by lessee under Mines Mines abandonment, in abandonment, notwithstanding ground In In lessor’s action to cancel Under an oil and lease is restoring lessor’s action to cancel oil and specially plead to a specific performance entire for the the lessee is not lessee, one of judgment canceling not err minerals jury’s finding minerals minerals abandonment, minerals lessee tract, including the land. of abandonment jury. lessor to fact for of mineral had by abandonment, had abandoned the gas ©=>77—Abandonment though ©=>77—Estate ©=>77—Lessor ©=>77—Lease gas completed lease lessee’s of abandonment lease fee nor lease which the lease the estate lessor’s fail- cancel entire prayer found that contract. had gas oil plead- entire lease lease lease lease en- ac- Texas. An of Civil Mines minerals 8. divisi- ©=>77—Lease tonio. 1924. ble, but entire 1924.) Denied Feb. wells, forfeited may 1. Mines minerals Lesser seek ©==>77— An oil and lease specific performance development by cancellation ten acres does abandonment, thereof on does provide a basis division of the not tate, contain forfeiture clause. occur at term of entire been On lessee’s of oil and respect real fulfilled in lease for which the consideration was the estate, and, property, where the abandonment is tract, including sue completed prior at his wells were to aban- contract and for election on which donment, the true is returned to owner. seek a of the contract in its tirety though abandonment, minerals Mines and 9. lease does contain a ©=>77—Failure casings, .right to lessor’s ac- clause. lease, held not error. tion to cancel Mines and minerals 2. ©=>77—Abandonment lessor’s action In intention. ground of fail- colirt’s of ah oil (cid:127)Abandonment lease is grant lessee the ure intention. and minerals Mines 3. equitable ©=>77—Abandonment order with direct established where there no issue raised circumstantial evidence. value of the toas judgment therefor, any personal ed thereon offer- damages. established irbthe same as to the measure manner cases see same

©=>For *Writ of March (Tex REPORTER' 258 SOUTHWESTERN 266 —Abandonment; let word Antonio, looked view ty ; derstood all the ais former trial ror. same oneself; luctance; sees’ quiring the coincident tate the word briefed ment case King sin-Texas to remove tures hausted the waukee, Wis., tically to forsake same” and an Entitle ner 11. Trial n cause productive “abandon;” “Counsel charge not to entitle lessee to remove ¡ease [Ed. Note.—Eor Yery Mason Terrell, Action COBBS, Error forsake In lessor’s M. Oil and Fixtures question Robert W. was abandonment. upon “abandonment,” Affirmed. as here. for facts interest and Spooner" charge given “proof the same Roark, by jurors generally, while the definition to and for defendant from District “abandon” Williams, plaintiff, both Davis, <@=>260(9) Oil or-abandon; quit; 23 different and circumstances case. The of intention production was reached. draw <®=27(2)--Oil well Joe Eirst wo’-ds complaint “abandonment” “intention “relinquish.” action Company and others. 'the B. 'for a all .of error, Relinquish.] this Clutter on Huff Terrell, Judge. as those introduced plaintiffs and defendants rights,” by are main means Kennon Leo —Refusal eanceilation for as is well other statement of the issues giving in view of court that all the main complaint synonymous, and the Court, Bexar Coun- propositions Mann, both Mil- error. be determined machinery McMillan, Antonio, and reported all claim n means claim facts casing” known and refusal “relinquish” from error. Kennqn, tried casings at the man- submit their of lease a claim up; case, “the to. assert the requested bring become a gas Abandon Wiscon- abandon and any of San give up es in the in this desert given; Judg- prac- from since Wil- law, > held les- un- fix- be- re- ex- to; er- is .to n firmative of January 14, ror. lengthy mineral in such and proof mineral ises.” It contained tion, rights, facts. upon to the time of tion No. 1 intention, swering strengthened, tinent.” mitted cause’we did trial from the good briefing tention “or as edy^ of the presumably this case to that reason there facts have been feiture. motion, dicating considered after Civil (Tex. _ “To “You are “Question No. While it After And defendant in all the W. error, January 14-, assigns circumstances in the case. findings be shown likewise be this It cannot is is Civ. Appeals, 323) contract and lease in cause long cases, this and voluminous Wisconsin-Texas Gas controversy? this upon hearing really is cites answer of the without, So the real consideration for case. The court, in favor of the defendant proposition the defendants was in this case App.) produced based question greater 1920. The was reversed not believe under the facts the has not been assignment and was to No. 1 we answer: Yes.” but one remanded Wiseonsin-Texas Oil 1. Did alternative, disposed be admitted that the rule for abandonment is a to instruct a verdict. The lessor is justified we have concluded to retain controversy provided all the 250 S. W. 1106. upon however, duty issue, all, they No. greatly, No. error, successfully maintained Equipment to ascertain there labor has been abandon evidence the the trial court entered 29 different question George rests facts and circumstanc- connection with conclusively support of on its without some rem to establish the af- or run for five in followed, oil, gas set out this is as follows: taking upon'you upon germane a new the oil and Company, prior any manner, assignments ‘Yes’ or this or at B. The burden of involves preponderance clause the Court of they Co. v. Luse what the in- Mecbem, assignments question materially merits, property. thp trial, Company together imposed and for abandon are need be of such to wit: or detail. ‘No.’ in an- in er- prem- Ques- facts elec case sub- (233 per- for- too be- in- i egsoEor see other cases

grounds tract tion jury Tes.) lished acts or what time of abandonment to latitude positive ises. reaching not abandon satisfy were trial court restoring the it was sion mean that show all the land were became stance perform construed terminated contract, cur dence, error had of the terms of the the 'estate. 254 S. error was nor doned entitled secure [2] Abandonment [3, ^[5] [7] When [6] The estate pari error in entire lease to be ascertained and other circumstance affirmative as to what 4] That When to cancel situated, ten W. 307. lessee, mineral production such as the delicto reinvested development for, say, it, to its as found development pleaded question being contract entitled .court equivalent acres, a lessee who has contracted for: party; have a contract, necessary plaintiff in as submitted Texas Co. Davis weigh a contract has been a lease contract (cid:127) by abandonment, providing entirety the verdict. of and interest in the any the lease of such a the contract. surrendered, to allowed suit. .We before the entire term of that a lessee judgmenf in the of minerals is not without for ato carefully every to, even intention was removal of is a to the abandonment. a it WIS fulfilled, a two ultimately the full dependent error abandoned a basis for the divi provision specific of value correct title judgment circumstantial specially though plaintiff in proposition would; the entire estate. fact CONSIN-TEX remedy. drilling think at the entered and and wells the two wells Having to enjoyment possession provides for defendant performance as may be, definition it held were acquires to lost, fact, machinery, .lease the entitled cannot be tract, plead them, It circum by and is to estab inten prem much We aban could Sup.) were well, readily time con- was evi (258 the the ment A S OIL fee oc by to t<x any 3.W.) ment owner, escrow estate based tion. Then- the lessee elected to fix his land, Sup.) and never by plaintiff rectly gave for, soil, lease. sands removal ed erred in not ure of cost and a The ducing was posal raised or keep it, may viously, fixtures quired no lessor that would waste duction or other casing; contemplated casing “Lessee Plaintiff in error When the abandonment is [9] Plaintiff in found in would be not commit waste!5~oirá5crgas production. CO. v. CLUTTER .estate. lease, eliminating time, machinery estate from future but capable 254 W. 309. fairly for five of this lease contract There is no contract does agreement perceive development, he sought would operation, appurtenant carriage cubic made as to the value of the one issue shall would another, soil development the law the casing.”- 465; examined the contrary, granting a well Grubb v. very contingency upon development the equitable. offered thereon improvements in the absence of some any personal judgment showed that mean feet of with error production have the why reason that to be obtained keep were that producing daily many fully wells or Robinson drilled, cased, error or oil right given to, here pleaded but and hold that the court and the cables created necessary firmly provided: provide, it cement to McAfee, covered gas. the rental destroy and fixtures exhausted San Antonio. their refusal. There defy contract, returned to the true the lessor desires to after There Was no terminated contends and a right right prg^ggigg; thereafter had charge. permissible. paying was enter and iron cemented in the the v. Jacobs it had been made. to the law these two these wells as a mineral lease. would become to remove the 109 Tex. determinable right reached, the abandon permit hold through and anchor remove the such order remove, proved rights up- signing the actual provision. was made the meas- very pro evidently it to the dis- produc- the We can to draw casing, straps, of the agree there- water thou- (Tex. .cor- pro well! the ' en ob no on [ at v (cid:127) ] y (Tes. 258 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER 2G8 ~ intention tioners’ is a to don to his contract pleasant impression, P. tion to criticize marks donment refusing for that reason fully ficiently their away, (8) (13) We do not Petitioners Plaintiffs find question, them, give allow Barrett was public. proceed is to and overrule the refrained from record of our “In connection with position 253 W. 605. It was not our that the We or interest “Xou are but “become concerning contention, Adams cannot submitted, complied positions evidence.” tlie sink relieve do and at The reason we relinquish think them other defendants be terminated .when instructed that counsel of their to assert with, you think either viewpoint.' there is administer a their al. v. Adams necessary party state,” 30, during of the trial court property once vested or placing assigned such estate or interest well. assignment. as construed citing and, voluntarily casings from brief anything the same.” time, places except lawyers profession otherwise, .rule was issue of aban- always said much order must wit: tied to the rebuke that permanent take them to reversible erroneous coincident required erred by proof our to this severe, justice in un- appear is af- aban- care- peti- suf- you give plaintiffs again ably ing. brief that was not before against plaintiffs in error. non’s pensation for “total enters service linquish.” abandonment was a well erally, would like entitled, Master Hodges, compensation a¿ LUMBERMEN’S RECIPROCAL ASS’N employee suffering [Ed. Note.—For other Whatever We find further 5246— Under Workmen’s regard known already bored', Ann. Civ. motion is overruled. case. words are first find actual “total have been error Civil J., incapacity.” nothing GILMORE. find a argued loss of that The court servant It has dissenting. loss and there incapacity.” give relief, as for loss of an Feb. St. ‘the error’s be the 5246— “coincident intention to re- understood all claim and really synonym's. Clearly, new in the motion for rehear- loss of Supp. 14, 1924.) sight <@=>385(11¼) One-eyed facts and sight Compensation loss of plain of Texas. Texarkana. (No. 2841.)* issues, by told unfortunate position, eye, charge. of one plaintiffs presented we are Total meaning, have limited find eye by jurors gen- employee no reason to much as arts. 5246—18 Denied eye, eye, Incapacity.] — themselves, eye only entitled to Law precluded in error’s and now and oil and not and not (Ver- com- then who we of abandon- that in cases Appeal Court, The contention Marion Coun- from' District contracts there oil lease Judge. ment of ty; Wilkinson, .must R. T. “a coincident Proceeding Compen- under the Workmen’s to assert never op- claimant, Gilmore, K. sation C. Law any right,” and “the Company, Downey posed by Lumber relinquish their must Reciprocal employer, and the Lumbermen’s appear from Association, for In- From insurer. requested charges would These appeal ruling claimant what were ex- clearer to Board, appeals. insurer dustrial Accident very pected from the clear to find and rendered. Reversed gave explanation them. The and court certain oil and Logue Mobley, Streetman, Andrews, the'charge gave as- appellant. Houston, for plaintiffs in error “abandoned the if Daingerfield, Bolin, Henderson lease.” definition thereof Texarkana, Wheeler, King, Mahaffey give up; desert or forsake To is: appellee. oneself. The def- forsake or aban- inition ap- began as an reluctance; HODGES, suit don; quit; Compensation peal- Workmen’s a claim to. topic and KEY-NUMBER eases see same <§=5>For 2, 1924. April of error *Writ

Case Details

Case Name: Wisconsin-Texas Oil Co v. Clutter

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jan 9, 1924

Citation: 258 S.W. 265

Docket Number: No. 7055. [fn*]

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.