Davis v. Howard
| Decision Date | 11 March 1955 |
| Parties | Ernie DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. Charles F. HOWARD, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
R. B. Bertram, Monticello, for appellants.
Bruce H. Phillips, Monticello, for appellee.
The sole question for determination is whether the trial court erred in giving appellee, Charles F. Howard, until February 1, 1954, to remove his oil well equipment from the lands of appellants, Ernie Davis and wife, after judgment was entered on November 23, 1953, canceling the lease on account of appellee having abandoned it.
An oil and gas lease had been executed in 1907 covering the 50 acre farm in Wayne County which is now owned by appellants. The lease provided it should remain in force and effect for a period of 20 years and as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced therefrom in paying quantities. In 1950 appellee acquired this lease and other oil properties from Wood & Son for $50,000. At that time there were three pumping wells on the lease. But appellant, Ernie Davis, in his testimony referred to appellee unhooking and removing the power from wells 14 and 16, so we presume 16 wells had been drilled and equipped on appellants' farm. However, the record is not clear on this point.
Appellee was content to operate the lease without further drilling, and the last royalty check received by appellants was for $4.90 in May 1952. In January 1953, appellants served notice on appellee that they were claiming the lease and equipment by reason of appellee having abandoned same. On July 31, 1953, appellee brought this action against appellants asking that the court adjudge the lease to be in full force and effect, and to enjoin appellants from interfering with his operating it.
The case was heard before the court without a jury. Appellee testified he had not abandoned the lease and had no intention of so doing and was studying and planning to use a method known as 'secondary recovery' on it. By this same method he had brought production back from nothing to 3000 barrels per month on the S. J. Bell lease in the same community. It must not be overlooked that we are not concerned with whether or not the court erred in canceling the lease, since appellee prosecutes no cross-appeal. Our sole concern is with the correctness of the court's ruling that appellee should have 67 days after the judgment, or until February 1, 1954, to remove the equipment.
The established rule in this jurisdiction is that the lessee of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garr-Woolley v. Martin
...(1972); 3 W. Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas § 526 (1958). See also Pratt v. Gerstner, 188 Kan. 148, 360 P.2d 1101 (1961); Davis v. Howard, 276 S.W.2d 460 (Ky.1955); Wilson v. Wilson, 280 Ky. 461, 133 S.W.2d 722 (1939); Bain v. Graber, 271 Ky. 393, 112 S.W.2d 66 There is, however, a split o......
-
Blue Equity Holdings Ky., LLC v. Cobalt Riverfront Props., LLC
...standard has, in many legal contexts, been interpreted to necessarily involve questions of fact. See, e.g., Davis v. Howard, 276 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Ky. 1955) (recognizing that, when considering the question of whether a lessee of oil and gas lands has removed all fixtures and machinery placed......
-
Nelson v. Kentucky School Boards Insurance Trust, No. 2008-CA-001588-MR (Ky. App. 4/30/2010)
...cause to believe that F.B. was abused — is also a question of a fact. Brown v. NolandCo., 403 S.W.2d 33 (Ky. 1966); Davis v. Howard, 276 S.W.2d 460 (Ky. 1955). Therefore, Summary Judgment was not For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Order of the Fayette Circuit Court granting Summary J......