French v. George
| Decision Date | 09 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 5390.,5390. |
| Citation | 159 S.W.2d 566 |
| Parties | FRENCH et al. v. GEORGE et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wheeler County; W. R. Ewing, Judge.
Action by R. L. George and others against DuMar Oil & Gas Company in which defendant filed a bill in interpleader in which the plaintiffs and Pauline Stripling French and others were named as party defendants. From the judgment, Pauline Stripling French and others appeal.
Affirmed.
J. B. Clark, of Shamrock, and Thompson & Barwise, of Fort Worth, for appellants.
Hill & Adkins, of Shamrock, for appellee R. L. George.
W. C. Barnett, Jr., of Houston, Amicus Curiae.
On or before January 1, 1937, the appellants and appellees, in various and sundry proportions not material here, owned all of the mineral rights and interests in various subdivisions of Section 76, Block 17, H. & G. N. Ry. Co. Surveys in Wheeler County. On that day they jointly executed to DuMar Oil & Gas Company an oil and gas lease on 240 acres, described in separate tracts and being the E/2 of the NW/4, the S/2 of the NE/4, and the E/2 of the SE/4, of said Section 76. The consideration recited in the lease was $10 and other good and valuable considerations, and it was provided therein that the lease should remain in force for a term of ten years and as long thereafter as either oil or gas was produced from any well on the land covered by the lease. It provided further that if a well should not be commenced on the leased land within one year from its date, the lease could be continued in force by the payment of rentals in the sum of $240 each 12 months during the primary term. The royalty reserved to the lessors was 1/8 of any oil or gas that might be produced, same to be paid or delivered to the "lessor." The lease contained the usual provision that all of the lessors, whether one or more, should be designated as "lessor", and the DuMar Oil & Gas Company as "lessee."
The DuMar Oil & Gas Company drilled a well on the SE/4 of the NW/4 of the section and same proved to be a producer of gas in September, 1937. The gas has been sold but none of the royalty has been paid. This suit was instituted by R. L. George, May George, L. B. George, Clayton C. George, and C. W. George against the DuMar Oil & Gas Company, in which the plaintiffs sought to recover the royalty due from the production of gas from the well, and the DuMar Oil & Gas Company filed a bill of interpleader in which the plaintiffs and Arthur Scruggs, Mrs. W. M. Schenck, Pauline Stripling French, Thomas C. Smith, Katherine Smith Brander and her husband, were named as cross-defendants. It prayed that all of the cross-defendants be required to interplead and that, upon hearing, the respective interests in the royalty be determined.
The case was tried before the court without the intervention of a jury, and the trial developed into a controversy over the construction of the oil and gas lease. Those parties to the litigation who did not own any interest in the minerals in and under the SE/4 of the NW/4, being the 40-acre tract upon which the well was drilled, contended that the lease was what is commonly known as a unitized or pooling lease, and that all of the interested parties were entitled to participate in the royalty from any oil or gas that might be produced from any portion of the entire 240-acre tract. The Smiths, the Georges and appellant, Pauline Stripling French, contended that the lease was not a pooling or unitized lease. They asserted its proper construction to be that, although all of the parties had joined in it and, notwithstanding that, before the lease was executed, the ownership of the oil, gas and mineral rights was vested in different parties in the several tracts included in the lease, yet, the effect and proper construction of the lease was that the royalty in each of the tracts was to be paid by the lessee to the lessors in proportion to the interests owned by them only in the tract upon which oil, gas or other minerals might be produced.
The judgment rendered by the court, in effect, decreed that the lease was a unitized or pooling instrument, and awarded the accumulated royalties to the parties plaintiff and defendant in proportion to the interests owned by them in the oil, gas and mineral rights in the entire 240 acres covered by the lease. Pauline Stripling French, Thomas C. Smith and Katherine Smith Brander, being dissatisfied with the judgment, gave notice of appeal and present the case in this Court for review upon the same contentions made by them in the court below, that is, that the lease should be construed as a separate lease by each of the parties of the oil, gas and minerals in and under the tract owned by him, or them, respectively, and there having been only one well drilled on the entire 240 acres, the royalties on the production of gas from the well, which was drilled on the SE/4 of the NW/4 of the section, should be paid in the proportions of 1/8 to the Smith interests, 1/8 to Pauline Stripling French, and 3/4 to the George interests, because they were the owners, in those proportions, of the oil and gas in that tract before the lease was executed. Thus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. Union Producing Company
...as a matter of law unless the lease states otherwise. Parker v. Parker, Tex.Civ.App. 1940, 144 S.W.2d 303, error ref.; French v. George, Tex.Civ.App.1942, 159 S.W.2d 566 error ref.; Southland Royalty Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 1952, 151 Tex. 324, 249 S.W.2d 914; Ward v. Gohlke, Tex.C......
-
State v. Valmont Plantations
...here that respondents suggest a re-examination of the Parker [Parker v. Parker, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 303] and George [French v. George, Tex.Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 566] cases on the theory that the courts should not attribute to lessors jointly executing a general form lease, without more,......
-
Dickerson v. Ray
...leasor of the nonproducing tract or tracts is permitted to share the royalties which accrue to the producing tract. See: French v. George, Tex.Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 566; Law v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W.2d 381; Lynch v. Davis, 79 W.Va. 437, 92 S.E. 427, L.R.A.1917F, 566.......
-
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. West
...also to accurately measure such production and sales in order to accurately account to the royalty owner. French v. George, 159 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1942, writ ref'd); Brown v. Smith, Supra. Thus, the Wests contend that the proprietary and contractual rights arising from their......
-
CHAPTER 1 ADVANCED MINERAL CONVEYANCING AND TITLE ISSUES - PART 1
...95 (5th Cir. 1968), Samson Lone Star, Ltd. Partnership v. Hooks, 2012 WL 195113 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2012), French v. George, 159 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Civ.App. 1942) (writ refused n.r.e.). [144] 4 Summers Oil and Gas § 54:13 (3d ed. 2012); See Peerless Oil & Gas Co. v. Tipken, 1942 OK 14......
-
CHAPTER 16 EXAMINATION OF TRACTS WITHIN TOWNSITES
...Bender 2013). [185] See, generally, Southland Royalty Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 249 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1952); French v. George, 159 S.W.2d 566 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 1942), Lynch v. Davis, 92 S.E. 427 (W. Va. 1917). [186] See French at 568 ("If the parties had intended that each tract ......