Brixey v. Union Oil Company of California
Decision Date | 24 April 1968 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2098. |
Citation | 283 F. Supp. 353 |
Parties | Frank M. BRIXEY and Lyda M. Brixey, Plaintiffs, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (Successor to the Pure Oil Corp.), Defendant, Gulf Oil Corporation, Intervenor. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Sam Sexton, Jr., Fort Smith, Ark., Wayland Parker, Greenwood, Ark., for plaintiff.
Roger K. Allen, Oklahoma City, Okl., Hardin, Barton, Hardin & Jesson, Ft. Smith, Ark., for Gulf Oil.
Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, Houston, Tex., Warner, Warner, Ragon & Smith, Ft. Smith, Ark., for Union Oil.
This is an action for ejectment and damages.
The case was tried to the court, without the intervention of a jury, on February 27, and 28, 1968. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' evidence in chief, the intervenor, Gulf Oil Corporation, submitted a motion for judgment in its favor. Ruling on the motion was deferred, and at the conclusion of all the evidence the court denied the motion. The case was submitted, and the parties have submitted voluminous briefs in support of their contentions.
Notwithstanding the length of the briefs, the material issues are few and not difficult of resolution.
For a better understanding of the issues the court believes that an abstract of the oil and gas lease, under which the defendant purportedly holds, and the pleadings should be set forth.
On March 6, 1957, plaintiffs executed and delivered to The Pure Oil Corporation (which later became Union Oil Company of California) an oil and gas lease on the following described lands:
Counties of Logan and Sebastian, Arkansas T 6 N, R 28 W—Section 6, SW¼ Section 7, NW¼ NE¼ and N½ NW¼ T 6 N, R 29 W—That part of the NE¼ NE¼ lying East of a Line 100 feet East of the Center Line of Rattle Snake Canyon Road in Section 12, in Sebastian County, Arkansas.
The lease was for a period of ten years "and as long thereafter as oil, gas, casinghead gas, casinghead gasoline, or either of them is produced from said land, or from lands with which said land is pooled * * *." (Emphasis added.)
The pooling clause of the lease reads as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
The lease further provided:
(Emphasis added.)
On October 29, 1966, the plaintiffs commenced an action, No. 3427, in the Chancery Court of South Logan County, Arkansas, by filing their "Complaint in Equity" against The Pure Oil Corporation. In their complaint they alleged that they had executed and delivered to The Pure Oil Corporation the lease heretofore referred to, which lease had been placed of record in the Lease Records of South Logan County, Arkansas; that on some date prior to March 1963, the Gulf Oil Corporation caused a gas well to be drilled and placed in production, the same being referred to as the Peacock Unit and composed of all of Section 7, Township 6 North, Range 28 West, containing 698.72 acres; that the lands belonging to the plaintiffs located in said section were included in that unit, and royalty on the gas produced from said unit had been and was being paid to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant has refused and failed to drill offsets to the producing gas well and has refused to explore or develop plaintiffs' lands and has refused to pay delay rentals on said lands; that the plaintiff Frank M. Brixey "notified the defendant that no payment was being made on any lands except those in Section 7, Township 6 North, Range 28 West and demanded that the leases be forfeited or delay rentals be paid; that the defendant, The Pure Oil Corporation, replied by mail stating it was holding all of the lands covered by the above described lease by the production in Section 7, Township 6 North, Range 28 West and refused to either pay delay rental or to commence operation; that more than a reasonable time has elapsed without operations having been commenced and plaintiffs allege they are entitled to have the lease cancelled and all other instruments that constitutes a cloud on plaintiffs' title either cancelled or held to be subsequent and subservient to the rights of the plaintiffs herein."
The defendant Union filed its answer in which it denied each and every material allegation contained in plaintiffs' complaint. A copy of the answer was served upon Karl D. Glass, Booneville, Arkansas, the attorney of record for plaintiffs.
On August 10, 1967, the intervenor, Gulf, with permission of the Chancery Court, filed its intervention, in which it alleged:
In paragraph IV of the intervention, Gulf alleged:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hurley Enterprises, Inc. v. Sun Gas Co.
...encompassed in the same lease. The "understanding" of Mr. Hurley was well stated by Judge John E. Miller in Brixey v. Union Oil Company of California, 283 F.Supp. 353 (W.D.Ark.1968). In that opinion, at p. 359, Judge Miller Under the law of Arkansas, and in the majority of jurisdictions whe......
-
Kuehne v. Samedan Oil Corp., 5428
...Castleberry, Okl., 275 P.2d 292 (1953); Texaco, Inc. v. Lettermann, Tex.Civ.App., 343 S.W.2d 726 (1961); Brixey v. Union Oil Company of California, (W.D., Ark.), 283 F.Supp. 353 (1968); Buchanan v. Sinclair Oil & Gas Company, 218 F.2d 436 (5th Cir. * District Judge at time of oral argument ......
-
In re Willis
...an estoppel by silence there must be something more than an opportunity to speak, there must be an obligation); Brixey v. Urnson Oil Co. of Calif., 283 F.Supp. 353 (W. D. Ar k.1968) ("[e]stoppel by silence or inaction is often referred to as estoppel by `standing by'"; the underlying princi......
-
John W. Gardner
... ... In United States v. Hanna nickel ... smelting company, 253 F.Supp. 784, 793 (1966), it was stated: ... "When ... In ... brixey v. Union oil company of California, 283 F.Supp. 353, ... 364 (1968), ... ...