Guffey-Gillespie Oil Co. v. Wright

• Decision Date: 15 June 1922
• Docket Number: 5947.
• Parties: GUFFEY-GILLESPIE OIL CO. v. WRIGHT.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

281 F. 787

GUFFEY-GILLESPIE OIL CO. v. WRIGHT.

No. 5947.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

June 15, 1922

W. A Sipe, of Tulsa, Okl., and C. B. Ames, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Ames, Chambers, Lowe & Richardson, of Oklahoma City, Okl of counsel), for appellant.

P. W Cress, of Perry, Okl., for appellee.

Before LEWIS, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER and POLLOCK, District Judges.

POLLOCK District Judge.

The question presented for decision on this appeal arises in this manner: Appellee, defendant below, as owner in fee of some 240 acres of land in Noble county, Okl., in the year 1915 made and delivered to one E. N. Gillespie an oil and gas lease thereon, in the usual form. Thereafter, and within the period of one year from its making, defendant, the lessor Wright, contending the lease was void, brought suit to obtain a decree of cancellation. This suit was dismissed. Thereupon the lessee, Gillespie, desiring to enter upon the land for the purpose of exploring for oil and gas, in accordance with the terms of the lease, was resisted by the lessor to such an extent he was compelled to and did institute a suit to enjoin such obstruction of the exercise of his rights under the lease. After a decree in said suit for complainant therein, the lessee, which on appeal was affirmed by this court (261 F. 46, 171 C.C.A. 642), thereupon, the lessee again desiring to resume exploration on the leased premises in accordance with the terms of the lease, and being again resisted in such endeavor by the lessor, Wright, on the ground the term of the lease had expired and its covenants had been broken by the lessee by the failure to pay the rentals reserved therein, this present suit was instituted by Gillespie for the purpose of obtaining a decree continuing the exploration period of the lease in force on the ground of wrongful obstructive tactics employed by the lessor, Wright, through which the work of exploration required to have been done under the terms of the lease was prevented.

After issue joined, by way of supplemental answer, defendant, Wright, brought forward his plea that the complainant therein, Gillespie, was not the party in interest, but, on the contrary, by written assignment of said oil and gas lease, dated March 22, 1921, complainant had transferred all his interest to appellant herein, Guffey-Gillespie Oil Company, a corporation of the state of Delaware. Thereupon, by leave of court, appellant was duly substituted as complainant in said suit. The suit coming on for trial, after the proofs of the complainant had been submitted, defendant, Wright, moved the court to dismiss the suit. This motion was based on three separate grounds. The court denied the motion as to all save one ground, which challenged the validity of the transfer of the interest of the lessee, Gillespie, under the oil and gas lease in question, during the pendency of litigation, to appellant herein, by reason of the terms and provisions of the Champerty Act of Oklahoma (Rev. Laws 1910, Sec. 2259), which act reads as follows:

'Any person who takes any conveyance of any lands or tenements, or of any interest or estate therein, from any person not being in the possession thereof, while such lands or tenements are the subject of controversy, by suit in any court, knowing the pendency of such suit, and that the grantor was not in possession of such lands or tenements, is guilty of a misdemeanor.'

On this ground the motion was sustained, and the supplemental bill of appellant was dismissed.

What may be the precise and accurate word or phrase employed to designate or describe the true and inherent nature of the interest or right which passed by...