Gulf Production Co. v. Kishi
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Smedley |
| Citation | Gulf Production Co. v. Kishi, 103 S.W.2d 965, 129 Tex. 487 (Tex. 1937) |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 1660-6794.,1660-6794. |
| Parties | GULF PRODUCTION CO. v. KISHI et al. |
Appellees recovered judgment against appellant for damages on account of appellant's failure, according to a jury's finding, to develop with reasonable diligence for the production of oil two tracts of land leased by appellees and their predecessors in title to appellant. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of appellant but, pending action on motion for rehearing, certified to the Supreme Court the following question:
The first of the two leases was executed December 23, 1919, for a recited consideration of $2,000 covers a tract of land containing about 150 acres, and provides for the payment to lessors as royalties of one-eighth of the oil produced, one-eighth of the value of the casinghead gas, and $100 per annum for each well producing natural gas. It gives to the lessee the exclusive right to explore, drill, operate, and produce on and from the leased land oil, gas, and other minerals. There is no fixed term. In the first paragraph of the lease the lessee obligates itself to commence in good faith within ninety days from the date of the lease operations in the drilling of a well for oil and to prosecute such operations continuously until the well has been completed. The second and third paragraphs of the lease are as follows:
The lease also contains a paragraph requiring the lessee to drill offset wells to producing wells that may be drilled within 200 feet of any line of the leased premises.
The second lease, which covers a tract of land containing 20 acres, was executed March 12, 1920, for a consideration of $2,000, and provides for the payment of royalties of one-eighth of the oil produced from all pump wells, one-sixth of the oil produced from all flowing wells, one-eighth of the net proceeds of the sales of casinghead gas, and $200 per annum for each well producing gas only. It gives the lessee the exclusive rights of mining and operating for oil, gas, or other minerals on the leased land. The term is for one year from the date of the lease and as long thereafter as the terms and conditions of the lease are complied with. The fourth and fifth paragraphs of the lease are as follows:
The sixth paragraph requires the drilling of offset wells whenever producing oil or gas wells are drilled on adjacent lands within 200 feet of any line of the premises.
The fourteenth paragraph of the lease is as follows:
Appellant completed a producing well on the tract of land covered by the first lease on or about May 2, 1921, and thereafter prior to January 20, 1927, it drilled to completion fifteen wells on that tract. All but three of such wells produced oil in large quantities. It completed its first producing well on the other tract, the 20 acres, on or about October 5, 1920, and thereafter prior to January 1, 1927, it completed on that tract six wells, all of which produced oil in large quantities. The foregoing facts as to the wells drilled by appellant are set out in appellees' petition, and copies of the two leases are made parts of the petition and attached as exhibits. It is not alleged that the wells were not drilled successively within the time stipulated in the leases. The petition alleges that reasonable diligence in the development of the first lease required the drilling of an average of fifteen wells per year from January 20, 1927, to the time when the suit was filed, and that reasonable diligence in the development of the other lease required the drilling of an average of five wells per year during that period. The prayer of the petition is for the recovery of damages in an amount equal to the royalties for the oil that would have been produced in the period from four years immediately preceding the filing of the suit to July 31, 1931, if the leased land had been developed with reasonable diligence.
We agree with the conclusion expressed by the Court of Civil Appeals that "the conditions of the leases prescribing the number of wells to be drilled by appellant necessarily excluded the implied covenant plead by appellees for further development, thereby denying as a matter of law appellees' contention that appellant rested under an implied covenant to drill wells in the development of the leased premises in excess of the number called for by the terms of the two leases."
The argument first presented by appellees in support of the implication of a covenant for further development by the drilling of additional wells after the completion of the wells expressly provided for by the terms of the leases proceeds from the premise that a covenant for reasonable development of land leased for the purpose...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
McGinnes Indus. Maint. Corp. v. Phx. Ins. Co.
...("Our decisions have repeatedly emphasized that courts ‘cannot make contracts for [the] parties.’ ") (quoting Gulf Prod. Co. v. Kishi, 129 Tex. 487, 103 S.W.2d 965, 968 (1937), which in turn quotes Freeport Sulphur Co. v. Am. Sulphur Royalty Co. of Tex., 117 Tex. 439, 6 S.W.2d 1039, 1040 (1......
-
Duke v. Sun Oil Company
...of implied covenants. See, e.g., Cilfton v. Koontz, 1959, 160 Tex. 82, 325 S.W.2d 684, 79 A.L.R.2d 774; Gulf Production Co. v. Kishi, 1937, 129 Tex. 487, 103 S.W.2d 965; Waggoner Estate v. Sigler Oil Co., 1929, 118 Tex. 509, 19 S.W.2d 27; Gay v. Grinnan, Tex. Civ.App., 1949, 218 S.W.2d 1021......
-
Flewellen v. Simms Oil Co.
...S.W.2d 1039, 60 A.L.R. 890; Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Barker, 117 Tex. 418, 6 S.W.2d 1031, 60 A.L.R. 936; Gulf Production Co. v. Kishi et al., 129 Tex. 487, 103 S.W.2d 965; Ralph v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., Tex.Civ.App., 95 S.W.2d 222; Cowden v. Broderick & Calvert, 131 Tex. 434, 114 S......
-
Glenda v. Metro. LIFE Ins. Co.
...make contracts for [the] parties.” HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881, 888 (Tex.1998) (quoting Gulf Prod. Co. v. Kishi, 129 Tex. 487, 493, 103 S.W.2d 965, 968 (1937)). Thus, A covenant will not be implied unless it appears from the express terms of the contract that “it was so cle......
-
Implied Covenants Including the Implied Covenant to Market
...contracts for the parties. HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881, 888 (Tex. 1998) (citing Gulf Prod. Co. v. Kishi, 129 Tex. 487, 103 S.W.2d 965, 968 {Tex, Comm. App. 1937, opinion adopted}). A covenant is not implied into an oil and gas lease as a matter of law - it is implied, if at......
-
CHAPTER 9 DEFINING THE LESSEE'S COVENANTS TO DRILL AND DEVELOP A LEASE
...Ltd., 565 N.W. 2d 887 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). [99] See Lowe, supra note 26 at 204-6 (discussing "or" clauses and "unless" clauses). [100] 103 S.W.2d 965 (Tex. 1937). [101] 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 768 (Cal. App. 2004). Because the court determined that the express lease terms would negate an implied......
-
CHAPTER 2 APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO EOR OPERATIONS
...supra note 92, at 181. [97] 5 WILLIAMS & MEYERS, 259-63 (and cases cited therein). [98] See Gulf Prod. Co. v. Kishi, 129 Tex. 487, 103 S.W.2d 965 (Tex. 1937) (ruling that leases calling for 18 wells on 170 acres contemplated full development); but see Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. v. Masterson, 27......
-
Chapter 7-14 Breach of Implied Covenant to Reasonably Develop
...and when the lease does not expressly address the subject matter of the covenant sought to be implied.").[369] Gulf Prod. Co. v. Kishi, 103 S.W.2d 965, 969 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1937); see Union Pac. Res. Group Inc., v. Neinast 67 S.W.3d 275, 282 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.).[3......