Cotherman v. Oriental Oil Co.
Decision Date | 08 April 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 2451.) |
Citation | 272 S.W. 616 |
Parties | COTHERMAN v. ORIENTAL OIL CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; E. W. Napier, Judge.
Action by G. M. Cotherman against the Oriental Oil Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded.
Weeks, Morrow, Francis & Hankerson, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
T. F. Hunter and E. E. Fischer, both of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by G. M. Cotherman, appellant, against the Oriental Oil Company, a corporation, appellee, in the district court of Wichita county, Tex., for the recovery of damages in the sum of $9,000, with interest and costs, for the alleged breach of a written contract entered into between the parties on or about November 1, 1922.
Appellant alleges that he was the owner of the oil and gas lease described in the contract, and complied with all of the terms, obligations, and conditions imposed upon him thereby, and that defendant accepted title, entered into possession of the premises, and begun the drilling of a well under the terms of the contract. He also alleges the conditions and obligations imposed upon appellee by the terms of said contract, and that appellee agreed to drill an oil well on 10 acres of the land described to the maximum depth of 1,850 feet, unless oil or gas in paying quantities was found at a lesser depth; that appellee drilled the well to the approximate depth of 1,775 feet, abandoned all drilling operations, and failed and refused to finish and complete said well to the depth of 1,850 feet, or to oil or gas at a lesser depth, and, notwithstanding appellant's insistence and demands that it comply with the contract, appellee failed and refused to do so, and that, because of such failure, appellant was damaged in the sum of $9,000, which he was to receive in oil, if oil was discovered on said premises, and that, by virtue of the breach of the contract by appellee, appellant also lost title to the oil and gas lease, which reverted to Dee and Bellport, the original owners, as his title was dependent upon the compliance by appellee with the drilling obligations imposed in the contract, all of which was well known to appellee.
Appellant alleges as the measure of damages the $9,000 to be paid in oil under the terms and conditions of the contract, and, in the alternative, the value of the leasehold, which he alleges to be the sum of $9,000.
The contract sued upon was attached to appellant's petition and made a part thereof, and after giving the date as October 20, 1922, identifying appellant as first party, and appellee as second party, provides that, for the consideration stated, and subject to the terms and conditions thereof, first party agrees to transfer, sell, and assign, and second party agrees to purchase and pay for the leasehold estate situated in the county of Archer, and describes the land as the west 10 acres of the north 20 acres of the north 30 acres of the East 60 acres of block 17, and the north 30 acres of the east 80 acres of the west 100 acres of said block. The other terms and provisions of said contract necessary to a determination of the issues presented read as follows:
Appellee answered by general demurrer, special exceptions, general denial, admitted the execution of the contract, and specially pleaded that plaintiff never at any time owned or held title to the oil and gas lease described in the contract, never paid any consideration therefor, but held the leasehold estate under and by virtue of a contract with the owners, the terms and conditions of which are similar to the one between appellant and appellee, which appellant failed to perform, and could not therefore complain of the failure of appellee to comply with its contract; that, at the time appellee entered into the contract with appellant, it intended in good faith to drill said well to a depth of 1,850 feet, or to oil in paying quantities at a lesser depth, but, on account of a drought, was unable to procure, at other than prohibitive prices, water necessary to be used in drilling the well; that both appellant and appellee were limited by time, and for lack of time, under the terms of their respective contracts, appellee was unable to procure water necessary to drill the additional 75 feet, and it was impossible for it to have complied, to the letter, within the time allowed; that said leasehold estate was situated in dry territory, and that by drilling the well to the depth it did, and by the drilling of wells by others on adjacent and adjoining tracts of land, it had demonstrated to a moral certainty that no oil would have been produced by drilling the additional 75 feet, and therefore appellant suffered no damage; that, at the time appellee abandoned the well, it was below the depth at which oil was produced in that territory, and the formation was such that indicated no oil-producing strata would be encountered if the well had been drilled the additional 75 feet.
Appellee also pleaded that the contract vested only a contingent interest in it, and stipulated for a forfeiture with a liquidating damage intent in providing that, in the event it failed to commence drilling or to secure a producing or paying well, all the rights under said contract should revert to appellant, under which either party could declare a forfeiture, and it having ceased drilling at the depth of 1,775 feet, appellant declared a forfeiture of the contract and estopped himself to seek damages for the failure of appellee to perform.
Appellee also pleaded that it substantially complied with the terms of the contract, and thoroughly tested said oil and gas lease by drilling a sufficient depth to demonstrate that the lease would not produce oil in paying quantities, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holmes v. McKnight, 6
...Oil Co. No. 1 v. Golden Rod Oil Co., 285 S.W. 631, (Tex.Civ.App., 1926), affirmed, 293 S.W. 167, (Tex.Comm.App., 1927); Cotherman v. Oriental Oil Co., 272 S.W. 616, (Tex.Civ.App., 1925, no writ history); Stovall v. Texas Co., 262 S.W. 152, (Tex.Civ.App., 1924, writ refused); Empire Gas & Fu......
-
Childress v. Cook, 16360.
...the contemplation of the parties at the time they made their contract. Thus recovery should be allowed. Cf. Cotherman v. Oriental Oil Co., Tex.Civ. App., 272 S.W. 616, 622; McGuire v. Osage Oil Corp., Tex.Com.App., 55 S.W. 2d 535 (dicta); Logan v. Elliott, Tex. Civ.App., 61 S.W.2d 157, 159;......
-
Farmers Mut. Tennessee v. Atkins
...Bldg. Corp. v. Hillis, 17 Tenn.App. 171, 66 S.W.2d 597, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933) (quoting Cotherman v. Oriental Oil Co., 272 S. W. 616, 619 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925)). Further, the facts in C-Suzanne are nearly identical to the facts in this case. Here, like the insureds in C-Suzanne, Ms. Atki......
-
Kleberg Cnty. v. URI, Inc.
...Square 67 Dev. Corp., 521 S.W.2d 874, 874–75 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1975, no pet.) (substantial performance as defense); Cotherman v. Oriental Oil Co., 272 S.W. 616, 618 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1925, no writ) (same); Adams v. Tri–Continental Leasing Corp., 713 S.W.2d 152, 153 (Tex.App.—Dalla......