Enfield v. Woods

• Decision Date: 16 March 1923
• Citation: 198 Ky. 328,248 S.W. 842
• Parties: ENFIELD v. WOODS ET AL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

248 S.W. 842

198 Ky. 328

ENFIELD v. WOODS ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 16, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Allen County.

Suit by W. R. Woods and others against George Enfield to cancel an oil lease. Decree for complainants, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. L James, of Elizabethtown, for appellant.

Harper & Denton, of Scottsville, for appellees.

SAMPSON C.J.

In February, 1916, H. K. Lewis executed an oil and gas lease on a tract of land in Allen county to Gilliam and Meredith for a term of five years from its date, and "as long thereafter as oil and gas, or either, is produced therefrom by the lessees, or either of them, their successors and assigns." The title to the land passed from Lewis to appellee Woods, and the oil lease was assigned and transferred several times, until it reached appellant Enfield, shortly before February 17, 1921. Appellant Enfield, had previous to the assignment of the lease to him drilled a well on the leased premises for his predecessor in title, but, finding no oil, he plugged it and moved his machinery away. In the settlement of accounts between appellant and his assignor, the lease passed by assignment to appellant, and he immediately moved his machinery back onto the premises and began to drill a well. This was in January or February, 1921. The lease by its terms was to expire on February 17th of that year. Finding that he would be unable to complete a well before the 17th of February, he moved his machinery from the hole he was drilling to the old well drilled on the lease for his predecessor, and there drilled out the plug and sank the well a few feet into another sand and on February 17th shot the well. About this time appellant had a conversation with appellee Woods, in which he asked Woods for additional time in which to further develop the property, but received no satisfactory answer. Woods, however, extended the time so as to give appellant opportunity to see whether the well which had been shot was a producer. After the well was shot, machinery was installed and it was pumped. Appellant, Enfield, testified that it produced some oil, but he admits the quantity was very small. He introduced some witnesses, who testified in substance the same.

On the other hand, appellee Woods testified that he was on the premises at the time the well was originally drilled in, and that it was a dry hole; that it was plugged slightly above the sand, and again at the depth of 72 feet; that appellant then gave the well to appellee Woods for water purposes and moved the machinery away, abandoning the lease; that a very short time before February 17, 1921, appellant moved his machinery back on the lease and began to drill, but finally placed his machinery over the old well and drilled the plugs out, and sank it a little deeper, and shot it, and thereafter pumped it, but found no oil of consequence, if any at...