Amoco Production Co. v. First Baptist Church of Pyote
| Decision Date | 05 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. B-8474,B-8474 |
| Citation | 611 S.W.2d 610 |
| Parties | AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. The FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PYOTE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Thomas B. Cuny, Jr., Houston, W. B. Browder, Jr., Midland, for petitioner.
Wm. Monroe Kerr, Midland, for respondents.
In this suit on a gas lease, the Court of Civil Appeals has recognized an implied covenant by the working interest owner to act in good faith in marketing the gas of its royalty owners. The opinion fails to expressly hold that there is some evidence to support the trial court's finding of a breach of that covenant. It is implicit in the court's reasoning that there was evidence of a breach of the covenant to market in good faith in Amoco's marketing of the lessors' gas at a rate substantially lower than market value, where by doing so Amoco was able to obtain for itself the collateral benefit of increasing the price for gas from its other previously dedicated leases from third parties. 579 S.W.2d 280. We agree.
However, this holding should not be interpreted as implying an absolute duty to sell gas at market value under a "proceeds" royalty clause. The parties can draft either a "market value" or a "proceeds" royalty provision, and their intent will be followed by the courts. Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Vela, 429 S.W.2d 866, 871 (Tex.1968). Although, in a proper factual setting, failure to sell at market value may be relevant evidence of a breach of the covenant to market in good faith, it is merely probative and is not conclusive.
Accordingly, we refuse the application for writ of error, no reversible error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrow-Shaver Res. Co. v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.
...owners and royalty owners. See Manges v. Guerra , 673 S.W.2d 180, 183 (Tex. 1984) ; Amoco Prod. Co. v. First Baptist Church of Pyote , 611 S.W.2d 610, 610 (Tex. 1980) (per curiam). The duty of good faith and fair dealing stems from the relationship of the parties and not from the contract. ......
-
Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC
...Texas' Eight's standard, but clarified that "no absolute duty to sell at market value will always exist." Amoco Prod. Co. v. First Baptist Church, 611 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1980). Thus, Texas courts have determined that the implied duty to market, which requires lessees to act as reasonably prud......
-
Rutherford v. Exxon Co., U.S.A.
... ... Lattimore, Houston, Tex., for Amoco Production Co ... Donald ... We come to three conclusions. First, we discern no evidence in the record suggesting ... v. First Baptist Church, 579 S.W.2d 280, 284-85 (Tex.Civ.App.--El ... ...
-
Christensen v. Integrity Ins. Co., A14-85-337-CV
...on the part of all parties to sales contracts. Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 1.203 (Vernon 1968). See also Amoco Production Co. v. First Baptist Church of Pyote, 611 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.1980) (oil leases); Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp., 138 Tex. 565, 160 S.W.2d 509 (1942) (agency); Sc......
-
Implied Covenants Including the Implied Covenant to Market
...Amoco Production Co. v. First Baptist Church of Pyote, 579 S.W.2d 280 (Tex. Civ. App.-El Paso 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 611 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1980). Typical language used in such a clause is the "net proceeds of the sale" or the "amount realized from the Such an implication is log......
-
CHAPTER 9 STRATEGIES AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN ROYALTY CASES
...at 106-107. [98] Amoco Prod. Co. v. First Baptist Church of Pyote, 579 S.W.2d 280 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e., 611 S.W.2d 610 (1980). [99] Amoco Prod. Co. v. Alexander, 622 S.W.2d 563, 568 (Tex. 1981). [100] Id. [101] Schnell v. Hudson, 490 N.E.2d 1052, 1060 (Ill. App. ......
-
CHAPTER 6 INTERPRETING THE ROYALTY OBLIGATION: THE ROLE OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT TO MARKET
...280 (Tex.Civ.App. 1979). [62] Id. at 282. [63] Id. at283. [64] Id. at 287 [65] Amoco Production Company v. First Baptist Church of Pyote, 611 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1981). [66] 683 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.App. 1984). [67] Id. at 27-28. [68] 683 S.W.2d 24, 29. Citations are omitted, but included Amoco Prod......
-
CHAPTER 10 THE OPERATOR'S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN MARKETING PRODUCTION
...1031, 1036 (1928). [22] See, e.g., Amoco Production Co. v. First Baptist Church, 579 S.W.2d 280 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e., 611 S.W.2d 610 (1981); Martin, supra note 20. While the standard of a good faith operator is ordinarily applicable, the relationship between operator and......
-
CHAPTER 11 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CO-OWNERS IN MARKETING NATURAL GAS
...See, e.g., Amoco Production Co. v. First Baptist Church of Pyote, 579 S.W.2d 280, 67 O&GR 568 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e. 611 S.W.2d 610, 67 O&GR 590 (Tex. 1981); Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Hagen, 683 S.W.2d 24 (Tex. App. 1984); Burford, "The Operator's Rights and Responsibilitie......