Hassell v. Texaco, Inc.

Citation1962 OK 136,372 P.2d 233
Decision Date05 June 1962
Docket NumberNo. 39553,39553
PartiesC. E. HASSELL, S. C. Hassell, and Carrie Hassell, Plaintiffs in Error, v. TEXACO, INC., a Corporation, Defendant in Error.
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus by the Court

1. In order to make a holding adverse to one who has reserved all mineral rights and the right to enter thereon for the purpose of extracting the same, there must appear to have been some denial of right, or some asserting of a claim inconsistent with his right, which does not necessarily appear where a person uses the land merely for agricultural purposes, as such use is entirely consistent with the right of another to prospect for oil and gas under the soil.

2. An application to vacate a judgment is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court and the order made thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion.

Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Raymond W. Graham, Judge.

Plaintiffs in error appeal from a judgment which denied their petition to vacate a judgment which had been previously rendered in favor of Texaco Inc., a corporation. Affirmed.

Harold Charney, Owasso, for plaintiffs in error.

Philip R. Wimbish, Elmer W. Adams, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

IRWIN, Justice.

On April 18, 1960, Texaco Inc., a corporation obtained a default judgment against defendants, C. E. Hassell, S. C. Hassell, and Carrie Hassell. In that judgment the trial court found, inter alia, that Texaco was the owner and operator of a valid and subsisting oil and gas lease covering the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec. 18, Twp. 21 N., Rge. 13 E., Tulsa County.

On August 16, 1960, the above defendants filed their petition to vacate the judgment rendered in April 18, 1960. In their answer and cross-petition they denied that Texaco had a valid and subsisting oil and gas lease and alleged that Texaco's lessors had no interest in the minerals for the reason that 'defendant Carrie Hassell has been in the open, adverse, actual and notorious possession of the mineral on said property for a period of 17 years and that the said Carrie Hassell took possession of said minerals and produced same from said property for a period of more than seventeen years, thereby obtaining title to said minerals by rescription and adverse possession'. It was further alleged that the defendant Carrie Hassell is the owner of the fee simple title to the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec. 18, Twp. 21 N., Rge. 13 E., Tulsa County.

On trial of the case and at the conclusion of defendants' evidence, the trial court sustained plaintiff's demurrer to the evidence and denied defendants' petition to vacate. Defendants perfected the present appeal.

The basis for defendants' allegations that defendant Carrie Hassell obtained title to the minerals by prescription and adverse possession is that she took over the production of the gas well in 1943, and had adversely held possession of the minerals continually for seventeen years; and that she mined and produced gas for commercial purposes, to wit: the production of income from the operation of her farm; that the production thereof was inconsistent with the rights of the true mineral owners and was open, visible, notorious and hostile.

FACTS.

The evidence discloses that a departmental oil and gas lease was executed which covered the minerals in question in 1906. Production was had and the lease was in force and effect until 1943, when the nine wells on the lease were abandoned. The Hassells had moved upon the property in 1932, and connected with a gas line belonging to Texaco which ran across the land and the gas was used in the Hassell home. The gas so used was from wells which are not located on the tract involved.

In 1938, Hopping Investment Company, which owned the fee simple title to the tract in question, subject however to the departmental oil and gas lease of 1906, conveyed the surface thereof to T. J. Hassell, from whom defendants deraign their title. Hopping Investment Company reserved all the minerals in the deed to T. J. Hassell in 1938. The successors to all the mineral rights reserved by Hopping Investment Company in the 1938 deed, executed oil and gas leases to Texaco in 1956 and 1957.

In 1943, the Hassells made a pipe connection with one of the abandoned gas wells which had not been plugged and used gas near a minnow pond. Later on they ran the gas line to the brooder house to keep it warm. In 1944, the gas line was connected with the house. Except for a short period in 1944, gas for the home was used from this well and also from the connection with Texaco which was supplying gas from wells located on other tracts. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Nelson v. Nelson
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 3 February 1998
    ...OK ----, 149 Okla. 187, 299 P. 866, 868.53 Farm Credit of Wichita v. Trent, 1997 OK 70, p 21, 943 P.2d 588 (1997); Hassell v. Texaco, Inc., 1962 OK 136, 372 P.2d 233, 235.54 Farm Credit of Wichita v. Trent, see note 53, supra; American Bank of Commerce v. Chavis, 1982 OK 66, 651 P.2d 1321, ......
  • Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 27 April 1999
    ...directly in response to the petition to vacate. 19. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Trent, 1997 OK 70, ¶ 21, 943 P.2d 588, 591; Hassell v. Texaco, Inc., 1962 OK 136, ¶ 14, 372 P.2d 233, 235; Lambert v. Lambert, 206 Okla. 577, 245 P.2d 436, 439 (1952); Parker v. Board of County Comm'rs of Okm......
  • CPT Asset Backed Certificates v. Cin Kham
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 7 May 2012
    ...is abuse of discretion. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. v. Webb Enterprises, Inc., 2000 OK 78, ¶ 5, 13 P.3d 480, 482;Hassell v. Texaco, Inc., 1962 OK 136, 372 P.2d 233. A clear abuse-of-discretion standard includes appellate review of both fact and law issues. Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10, ¶ 43......
  • Nilsen v. Tenneco Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 29 January 1980
    ...e. g., Bates v. Old Mac Coal Co., Okl., 271 P.2d 315 (1954); and Keith v. Lawson, 195 Okl. 157, 155 P.2d 716 (1945).4 Hassell v. Texaco, Inc., Okl., 372 P.2d 233 (1962); Strickland v. Reeburgh, Okl., 362 P.2d 1110 (1961); Churchill v. Muegge, Okl., 323 P.2d 339 (1958); and Deruy v. Noah, 19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT