Eagle Creek Oil Co. v. Illinois-Oklahoma Petroleum Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 18613 |
| Citation | 141 Okla. 122,284 P. 43,1930 OK 40 |
| Parties | EAGLE CREEK OIL CO. v. ILLINOIS-OKLAHOMA PETROLEUM CORP. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Review--Insufficiency of Evidence--Action to Recover Real Estate and Quiet Title Tried to Court.
Where, in an action for recovery of real estate and for the quieting of title thereto, defendant's answer controverts the issues of fact raised by plaintiff and sets up equitable defenses, and asks affirmative relief, the effect of which, if successful, would be to defeat plaintiff's title and vest the same in defendant, and where the parties waive a jury and the cause is tried by the court, and upon appeal the only error assigned is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, and where, on examination of the entire record, it appears that the judgment with respect to the issues of fact ordinarily and properly triable by a jury is amply supported by the evidence, and that the judgment is not against the clear weight of the evidence, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal.
2. Same.
From an examination of the evidence as indicated in paragraph 1 hereof, it is held that the judgment of the court, in so far as the same is based upon issues of fact ordinarily triable to a jury, is properly supported, and as to all other issues, the said judgment is not against the clear weight thereof.
3. Reformation of Instruments -- Mutual Mistake in Conveyance--Degree of Proof.
The evidence necessary to support an allegation of a mutual mistake made by parties to a conveyance of property and to reform such conveyance upon such ground, must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from District Court, Stephens County; M. W. Pugh, Judge.
Action by Illinois-Oklahoma Petroleum Company against the Eagle Creek Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Sandlin & Winans, for plaintiff in error.
H. W. Sitton, W. C. Lewis, and Leon S. Hirsh, for defendant in error.
¶1 Illinois-Oklahoma Petroleum Corporation, defendant in error here, as plaintiff below, sued Eagle Creek Oil Company, a corporation, plaintiff in error here, defendant below, to recover an oil well and to quiet title to lands thereunder. The well was designated Brown No. 3, and the site of same as well as the place of suit was Stephens county.
¶2 Parties will be referred to as they appeared below. Plaintiff alleged that it owned the lease covering south half of southeast quarter of northeast quarter, section 26, township 1 north, range 9 west, Stephens county, Okla., and was in possession of the premises (a copy of the lease and assignment thereof to plaintiff are attached to petition) that defendant has wrongfully withheld said well and has appropriated $ 54,000 worth of oil from same since May 1, 1925.
¶3 Defendant admitted that plaintiff owned the lease, but denied that Brown No. 3 was situate thereon; alleged that it was not intended by the conveyance defendant delivered to Ka-Wye Petroleum Company (plaintiff's grantor) to convey said well; that it was understood that same should remain the property of defendant, of which the plaintiff had notice; that if said well is, in fact, on said lease, there is a mutual mistake in the assignment of same which should be reformed; that Ka-Wye Petroleum Company saw and permitted defendant to take charge of and deepen said well at an expense of $ 5,000, and that by failure to protest plaintiff became estopped; that if plaintiff recovers, defendant should recover its expenditures.
¶4 The reply contained a general denial and an allegation that defendant knew, or by reasonable care, could have known, the boundaries of the land in controversy; that the section and its measurements were regular, and that the survey made by the government years ago made the location of all subdivisional lines a matter of easy and simple measurement.
¶5 The parties waived jury and tried the cause to the court. Judgment went for plaintiff for title and possession of the well, and defendant appeals.
¶6 Defendant in its brief urges only two of its nine assignments of error, to wit, Nos. 2 and 3, and presents these together. They are " (2) Said court erred in overruling the demurrer of defendant to the plaintiff's evidence," and "(3) said judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law."
¶7 Defendant having abandoned the other assignments of error, we shall pursue the policy of defendant in discussing together these two assignments, since they present but a single issue.
¶8 Was the evidence sufficient to support the judgment?
¶9 It was stipulated at trial that Robert B. Brown and wife, the owners, on November 7, 1919, executed an oil and gas lease to A. A. Ketchum on the land in dispute. This lease through intermediate assignments passed to defendant, who, on May 25, 1925, assigned same to Ka-Wye Petroleum Company, and thereafter plaintiff became by assignment the owner of said lease.
¶10 In 1921, the Eagle Creek Company, being the owner of the lease on the above lands and also on the 20 acres lying just north thereof, drilled a well 2,000 feet in depth near the center lateral line of said tract, encountering only a small showing of gas. The well was not operated and was abandoned as a dry hole. In 1924, certain producing wells were brought in south of this tract, and it became necessary for defendant to drill offsets, and for that purpose it contracted with Ka-Wye Petroleum Company, through its trustee, V. A. Kedney, to drill two offset wells in consideration whereof defendant was to assign to said company the lease on the south 20 acres and pay $ 250 per acre out of oil. Soon after this contract was fully performed, some difficulty arose between Mr. Kedney, trustee, and the shareholders of the Ka-Wye Company, resulting in the organization of plaintiff company which took over the assets and affairs of Ka-Wye Company. Mr. Kedney acted for a short while as vice president and local manager of the new corporation, but later resigned. Gas was found in the offset wells drilled by the Ka-Wye Company, and soon thereafter the Eagle Creek Company erected a rig over the well which had been originally drilled by it near the center lateral line of the 40-acre tract, and, after deepening same less than 200 feet, found the same productive sand discovered in the offset wells to the south. The well was completed as a considerable producer in May, 1925. Mr. Kedney was in charge of the operation and no legal action was taken to oust the Eagle Creek Company, but it appears that plaintiff, was making claim to said well evidenced by sharp correspondence, but soon after his removal from the management of the company in November, 1925, other demands were made for possession of the well upon the ground that same was located on the 20 acres belonging to plaintiff, but the demand was refused and the present action followed.
¶11 An abridgment of the evidence follows:
Fred G. McCune, a civil engineer, surveyed the 20-acre tract for plaintiff in November, 1925; that there was a rig situate on line between north and south halves of the 40 acres, and that the old well was south of the median line; part of rig was located on the line; surveyed it again under employment of defendant and again found the well south of the median line.
¶12 Witness describes how he arrived at his initial points; located the center of the section north and south and squared up by these; his starting point was an iron stake set by Carter Oil Company, also a stone which bore all indications of having been set by the government and to have remained unmolested. Experienced engineers would accept these points as controlling; that his survey coincided with a survey of same and markers established by Carter Oil Company. Witness surveyed the premises three times and his surveys did not vary one-half inch; that the well was 20 inches south of the line; that he verified the position of iron post by surveying from center of section 28, at which point he found a stone set up by a post; that in one of his surveys he made a slight error, but it would not affect his conclusions that the well lay south of the median line, except to place the well even further south.
¶13 A demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, introduced at this point, was overruled.
¶14 V. A. Kedney, for defense, testified: Was formerly trustee for Ka-Wye Petroleum Company, a common-law trust, and was one of organizers and an officer of plaintiff; made trade with Mr. Heck of defendant for the 20-acre tract in 1925; that both understood old well was on north 20 acres; defendant kept possession, neither he nor his company made claim to it; if the well were not on north 20 acres, a mistake was made; he received assignment from defendant in May, but the deal had been closed orally a month before; he agreed to drill two wells on 20 acres and pay $ 5,000 in oil; that this was done; did not intend to trade for old well; that Mr. McNeill was also an officer of the plaintiff in September, 1925, and was on the lease frequently, and that he made no claim to the well; that witness did not intend to convey the well to plaintiff.
¶15 Cross-examination: Discussed purchase of 20 acres with Mr. Heck in spring of 1925; he offered $ 250 an acre and to drill two offsets; Heck said to divide the 40 acres east and west so as not to take in the old well and witness admitted that to divide the tract north and south would not provide the necessary two offsets on the south end; he had been on the land before the deal; Brown well No. 3 had been long abandoned; the derrick had blown down and that practically none of timbers could be used; no machinery and no boiler there and defendant had never taken any production from the well; he did not think the old hole was on the south 20 acres; that Mr. Heck refused to deal on it.
¶16 Witness admitted that, on April 5, 1926, he swore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eason Oil Co. v. Whiteside
...if he left anything out of said lease contract that he desired to have therein. ¶11 The case of Eagle Creek Oil Co. v. Illinois-Oklahoma Petroleum Corporation, 141 Okla. 122, 284 P. 43, in discussing these questions, lays down the following rule:"But where parties enter into a solemn agreem......
- Eagle Creek Oil Co. v. Illinois-Oklahoma Petroleum Corp.