Gulf Production Co. v. Continental Oil Co.
Decision Date | 01 November 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 6641.,6641. |
Citation | 132 S.W.2d 553 |
Parties | GULF PRODUCTION CO. et al. v. CONTINENTAL OIL CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Black, Graves & Stayton and C. L. Black, all of Austin, Williams, Neethe & Williams and F. A. Williams, all of Galveston, John E. Green, Jr., of Houston, Wm. L. Wise and Peveril O. Settle, both of Fort Worth, C. L. Stone, of Henderson, and H. L. Stone, of Pittsburg, Pa. (Claude McCaleb, of Houston, and R. L. Batts, of Austin, for plaintiff in error Gulf Production Co.
Brachfield & Wolfe, of Henderson, McKinney & Berry, of Cooper, Hiner & Pannill, of Fort Worth, Wm. Pannill, of Houston, and Ben H. Powell, of Austin, for Turner and Wife.
Phillips & Phillips, W. H. Francis, and Walace Hawkins, all of Dallas, Lloyd Price, Burney Braly, G. R. Pate Phillips, Trammell, Chizum, Price & Estes, T. S. Christopher, Clayton L. Orn, Joe E. Estes, and John A. Braly, all of Fort Worth, McEntire, James & Clower, of Tyler, Dan Moody and G. B. Smedley, both of Austin, and Eugene Lary, of Dallas, for defendants in error Continental Oil Co., and others.
This case is before the Court by writ of error from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth District. The opinion of that court may be found in 61 S.W.2d 185, and is here referred to for a general statement of the case. The Continental Oil Company, East Texas Refining Company, H. L. Hunt, and P. G. Lake, as plaintiffs in the trial Court (defendants in error here), filed this suit against G. G. Turner and wife, Sina A. Turner, and the Gulf Production Company (plaintiffs in error here) to recover the oil and gas leasehold estate in a certain 311.72 acres of land, more or less, in Rusk County, Texas. The defendants in error claim title under an oil and gas lease from G. G. Turner and wife, Sina A. Turner, to C. M. Joiner, Trustee, dated April 7, 1927. The Gulf Production Company title is through and under a similar lease executed by the said G. G. Turner and wife, Sina A. Turner, to J. W. Pevey, dated July 25, 1930. At the time of the trial below the Gulf Production Company was in possession under its lease, had brought in seven producing wells, and was then drilling another, all at a cost to the company up to that time of $149,725. The suit was brought by defendants in error in the form of an action in trespass to try title, but they specially pleaded the Turner lease of April 7, 1927, and compliance with its terms as the source of their title. The primary question is: Which lease is to be given effect? The lease of defendants in error is in the usual form of oil and gas leases. G. G. Turner and wife, Sina A. Turner, are named as lessors, and C. M. Joiner, Trustee, as lessee.
The lease sets out the field notes of the land, was to run five years, and as long thereafter as oil or gas might be produced.
Both G. G. Turner and his wife first acknowledged this lease in statutory form on the 7th day of April, 1927, before G. P. Birdwell, Notary Public for Rusk County, Texas. More than three years thereafter, viz., on the 18th day of October, 1930, both G. G. Turner and his wife, S. A. Turner, again acknowledged the execution of this instrument, in statutory form, before James A. Copeland, Notary Public for Harris County, Texas. The lease was twice filed for record in Rusk County; first on the 15th day of April, 1927, and again on February 17, 1931.
The "drilling clause" of the lease reads: (Italics ours.)
The plaintiffs in error say that the above "unless" clause was never complied with, and that the lease terminated by its own limitations on April 7, 1928, long before Pevey, through whom the Gulf Production Company claims, obtained his lease from the Turners. Defendants in error say in their pleadings that they claim "through and under said lease, and subject to the terms of said lease." and "upon which all delay rental obligations had been fully satisfied and discharged."
Although Mr. and Mrs. Turner denied that anything of the sort ever took place, the jury, answering special issues, found that G. G. Turner and wife, Sina A. Turner, prior to April 7, 1928, accepted from Dan Cameron syndicate interest certificates purporting to cover the 80-acres Joiner discovery well tract (on the Daisy Bradford land), in satisfaction of the rentals payable under the lease for the three succeeding years, commencing April 7, 1928. The syndicate interest certificate transaction took place between G. G. Turner, alone, and Dan Cameron, a representative of C. M. Joiner, Trustee,—Mrs. Turner not being present. Concerning the transaction, Cameron in part testified:
The above transaction is the only basis for the claim that Joiner, Trustee, complied with the terms of the lease, and the Court of Civil Appeals held it was sufficient for that purpose.
The homestead of Turner and his wife was located on the land, and had been for more than fifty years. The Court of Civil Appeals held that after the execution of the lease by the Turners they had no homestead rights whatever in or to the property, in part saying [61 S.W.2d 188: "So the conveyance of the determinable fee by G. G. Turner and wife carried with it the exclusive right of possession, and that remaining in the Turners after the conveyance being only a right of reverter, not carrying with it a right of possession, until after the happening of the event that would terminate the estate, then no right of homestead could attach in favor of the Turners, a present right of possession being necessary for homestead rights to attach."
This holding is the basis of the court's conclusion that the syndicate interest certificate transaction was valid.
In our opinion, the terms of the lease negative any purpose to grant or to abandon the homestead or the possession of the premises, or any interest therein not necessary for carrying into effect the lease itself. The lease expressly states that Joiner, Trustee, and his vendees, could not use the "water wells of the lessor"; that "when requested by lessor, lessee shall bury all pipe line below plow depth"; that "no well shall be drilled nearer than 200 feet to the house or barn on said premises, without the written consent of the lessor"; and "Lessee shall pay for damages caused by all...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Gulf Production Co. v. Continental Oil Co.
-
Parks v. Underwood, 14859
... ... Gulf Production Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 139 Tex. 183, 132 S.W.2d 553, 164 S.W.2d 488, see Note, 27 ... ...
-
Phillips v. Brazosport Savings & Loan Association
... ... BRAZOSPORT SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Fort Bend Federal ... Savings & Loan Association, and Gulf Savings & ... Loan Association, Respondents ... No. A-8874 ... Supreme Court of Texas ... 719; Creosoted Wood Block Paving Company v. McKay, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W. 822; Gulf Production Company v. Continental Oil Company, 139 Tex. 183, 132 S.W.2d 553, 164 S.W.2d 488; 1 Tex.Jur.2d, pp ... ...
-
Gambill v. Snow
... ... "Options must be accepted according to their terms * * *." Gulf Production Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 139 Tex. 183, 132 S.W.2d 553, 564. See also, 6 R.C.L. 604; ... ...
-
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...of surface use. [106] 422 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Dicta in Gulf Prod. Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 132 S.W.2d 553, 562 (1939), superseded on motion for rehearing, 139 Tex. 183, 164 S.W.2d 488 (1942), indicated that a multidimensional approach to the probl......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...of surface use. [105] .422 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Dicta in Gulf Prod. Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 132 S.W.2d 553, 562 (1939), superseded on motion for rehearing, 139 Tex. 183, 164 S.W.2d 488 (1942), indicated that a multidimensional approach to the prob......
-
CHAPTER 3 RIGHTS OF ACCESS BETWEEN SURFACE OWNERS AND MINERAL LESSEES
...Petroleum Corp. v. Martin, 153 Tex. 466, 469, 271 S.W.2d 410, 413 (1954); Gulf Production Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 139 Tex. 183, 132 S.W.2d 553, 563 (1939); Reading & Bates Offshore Drilling Co. v. Jergenson, 453 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. Civ. App. — Eastland 1970, writ ref'd. n.r.e.) (rights of ......
-
CHAPTER 1 REGULATION OF SURFACE USE BY MINERAL DEVELOPERS
...took place under the Relinquishment Act of 1925 (Articles 5367-5382, R. S. 1925). [16] Gulf Production Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 132 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. 1939). [17] Id. at 562. [18] Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Wimberly, 181 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1944). [19] Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. Truesdell, ......