Davies v. Texarkana Crude Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1923
• Docket Number: 26005
• Citation: 97 So. 597,154 La. 424
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: DAVIES v. TEXARKANA CRUDE OIL CO

97 So. 597

154 La. 424

DAVIES v. TEXARKANA CRUDE OIL CO

No. 26005

Supreme Court of Louisiana

July 11, 1923

Rehearing Denied October 2, 1923

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; T. F Bell, Judge.

Action by D. D. Davies against the Texarkana Crude Oil Company. From a judgment granting insufficient relief, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed in part and set aside in part, and case remanded with instructions.

Lewell C. Butler, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Wilkinson Lewis & Wilkinson, of Shreveport, for appellee.

OPINION

ROGERS, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant to annul a certain mineral lease on land in the parish of Caddo. This court annulled the lease and ordered that defendant, on its demand in reconvention, be paid $ 25,000 for procuring the killing of a wild gas well on the leased property, with an additional sum to cover the value of gas produced from the well during the first year after its connection with the pipe line. The case was remanded for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity and value, at 1 1/2 cents per thousand cubic feet of the gas so produced. It was further ordered that the sum of $ 16,014.04, which the court found from the record had been received by defendant from the production of the well, should be applied against the total amount due it for the killing, and from the production, of the well, and that the defendant should continue to receive the proceeds from the well until the balance due was liquidated, reserving to plaintiff the right to pay said balance in cash and resume possession of his property. 152 La. 308, 93 So. 104.

Upon the trial of the case under the order of remand, counsel for both sides submitted an affidavit showing that the value of the gas received after connection of the well with the pipe line was $ 3,148.30, and judgment was rendered accordingly. It was discovered subsequently that said affidavit was erroneous, as no gas whatever had been produced from the well, because of its extinction, and, on motion, the case was reopened, and judgment finally rendered decreeing:

"That defendant is entitled to receive for the closing of said 'wild well' the sum of $ 25,000, and that all sums received by defendant and its transferors from the proceeds or production of said 'wild well,' this being fixed at this time, as $ 16,014.04, or that may be due thereon, be credited against the said sum of $ 25,000, and that in payment of the balance, the defendant shall continue to receive the proceeds from said 'wild well' until the said sum of $ 25,000 is fully satisfied, reserving to plaintiff the right, if he so elect, of paying said balance in cash, and thus freeing his property from all other claims on account of the said contract of January 6, 1913. Defendant to pay all costs of this court."

From this judgment plaintiff has appealed, and defendant has answered the appeal, praying that the judgment be amended by awarding it $ 3,148.30 for the value of the gas produced by the well the first year it was turned into the pipe line; or, in the alternative, since the original judgment, holding that defendant had received from said well $ 16,014.04, was based on an erroneous admission of counsel for both parties, the case should be remanded for the purpose of ascertaining whether the gas produced to said amount was from the said "wild well" or from other wells on the leased premises, and, if found to be the product of other wells, the erroneous admission of counsel should be corrected and the credit awarded plaintiff should be disallowed.

An admission in the record shows that during the first year after the said "wild well" was closed no gas was taken therefrom, and that the well was not connected with any pipe line for at least several years, if at all, after it was closed.

Plaintiff complains that the effect of the judgment appealed from is to preclude him from recovering his property, since it permits defendant to retain the same until it receives...