Frank Oil Co. v. Belleview Gas & Oil Co.
Decision Date | 14 November 1911 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 929 |
Citation | 29 Okla. 719,119 P. 260,1911 OK 385 |
Parties | FRANK OIL CO. v. BELLEVIEW GAS & OIL CO. et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. MINES AND MINERALS--Contracts---Oil and Gas--Construction and Operation. Oil and gas, while in the earth, unlike solid minerals, are not the subject of ownership distinct from the soil, and the grant of the oil and gas, therefore, is a grant not of the oil that is in the ground, but of such a part as the grantee may find, and passes nothing except the right to explore for the same under the terms of such contract.
2. MINES AND MINERALS--Oil and Gas Lease--Construction and Operation--Forfeiture. Where a party leases a tract of land for the purpose of mining and operating for oil and gas, the lessee contracting to deliver to the pipe line with which such well or wells may connect one-eighth of all oil saved from said premises, and to pay $ 150 each year for the product of each gas well while the same is being used off the premises, if oil and gas are found on said premises, also paying cash in hand the sum of $ 200 and agreeing to commence within 30 days from the date of said lease a well on an adjoining tract of land belonging to one Gibson, and in which the lessor had no direct interest, and the lease containing the following provision:
* * *"
--Held, that this provision did not bind the lessee to pay any rent for the land or for delay in commencing to operate for oil and gas, said grant or lease amounting to an option, preventing the lessor, after receiving the consideration for the first year, from leasing to another during such time, and after receiving a quarterly payment, from leasing to another until such delay period of a quarter had expired, the lessee having the option, by continuing to pay such quarterly payments, to continually renew such option by such succeeding payments, the word "year" being used merely as a basis to fix the amount of the quarterly payments.
(a) A gas and oil lease giving the lessee the option to pay a certain sum, and thus extend the lease, is operative against the lessor during such extension only upon the payment of such sum; contract rights being correlative and mutual.
(b) Where the lessee had abandoned his lease by nonpayment of quarterly payments of rent or delay money, as stipulated therein, and such lease or contract having been declared forfeited by the lessor, the rights of the lessee thereby terminated.
3. MINES AND MINERALS--Oil and Gas Lease--Construction Favoring Lessor. A different rule of construction obtains as to oil and gas leases from that applied to ordinary leases or to other mining leases. Owing to the peculiar nature of the mineral, and the danger of loss to the owner from drainage by surrounding wells, such leases are construed most strongly against the lessee and in favor of the lessor.
4. CONTRACTS -- Optional Contracts -- Construction. When contracts are optional in respect to one party, they are strictly construed in favor of the party that is bound and against the party that is not bound.
5. CONTRACTS--Installments--Time of Payments--Waiver--Estoppel. The contract providing for the payment of the sum of $ 20 quarterly in advance, the check for the first payment was mailed by the lessee to the lessor on the date the payment was to be made, and, being received by the lessor on the next day, it was accepted by him. The check for the second payment was mailed by the lessee to the lessor four days before the date of payment, and, being received by him prior to said date, was accepted. The third quarterly payment was not mailed to the lessor by the lessee until five days after the date provided for payment; the lessor having three days after the date of payment declared the lease forfeited on the ground of nonpayment. The check was received by the lessor six days after the date of payment and returned by him. Held, that the accepting of the first payment one day after the date of payment did not estop the lessor from declaring a forfeiture for nonpayment, or operate as a waiver to insist on the conditions of the contract; the lessee obviously not so construing it as an estoppel or waiver, as he sent the second payment four days before the date required, thereby indicating a recognition of the binding force of all the terms of the contract.
Error from District Court, Okmulgee County; John Caruthers, Judge.
Action by the Belleview Gas & Oil Company and others against the Frank Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
West, Mellette & Jones, for plaintiff in error
Geo. S. Ramsey, J. C. Stone, Thos. H. Owen, and C. L. Thomas, for defendants in error
¶1 On the 15th day of October, 1906, the defendants in error, Elmer M. Lowe and Mollie E. Lowe, executed an oil and gas lease to the plaintiff in error upon a certain 80 acres of land allotted to Elmer M. Lowe, as a member of the Creek Tribe. Said contract is in haec verba:
¶2 The well on the Gibson tract was commenced within 30 days; but no well was commenced on the leased premises within one year from said date, nor had possession been taken thereof prior to the time of the alleged forfeiture. It becomes essential, under the facts stated, to determine the meaning of the provision, "unless second party shall pay to the first party eighty ($ 80.00) dollars for each year thereafter such completion is delayed, said rental to be paid quarterly in advance."
¶3 This contract having been entered into prior to the erection of the state, section 1118 (section 876, Statutes Okla. Ter. 1890), Compiled Laws of Oklahoma, 1909, which provides, "Time is never considered as of the essence of a contract, unless by its terms expressly so provided," has no application in the construction of this lease, as certain statutes of Arkansas, as they appeared in Mansfield's Digest of 1884, were at that time in force in Indian Territory. Act of Congress, May 2, 1890, 26 U.S. Statutes at Large, § 31, c. 182, p. 94. Under the controlling decisions in Arkansas, the forfeiture in the language of this lease was permissible. Williams v. Green, 14 Ark. 315; Gann v. Ball, 26 Okla. 26, 110 P. 1067.
¶4 It is insisted by counsel for plaintiff in error that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial