Hazelton v. Chaffin

• Decision Date: 07 May 1921
• Docket Number: 23,202
• Citation: 109 Kan. 175,197 P. 870
• Parties: C. N. HAZELTON and SARAH J. HAZELTON, Appellees, v. DAVID CHAFFIN, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

197 P. 870

109 Kan. 175

C. N. HAZELTON and SARAH J. HAZELTON, Appellees, v. DAVID CHAFFIN, Appellant

No. 23,202

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 7, 1921

Decided January, 1921.

Appeal from Elk district court; ALLISON T. AYRES, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. WRITTEN LEASE--Oil and Gas Lease--Unambiguous--May Not Be Varied by Parol Evidence. Rule followed that in the absence of pleading and proof of some species of fraud or mutual mistake a plain and unambiguous written contract must be enforced according to its terms; and neither pleading nor proof of a parol understanding at variance with the written contract can be considered.

2. SAME--Action for Rent--No Legal Defense Shown. Where the grantee of a written contract to lease land for the development of gas and oil undertakes to pay rent until a well is commenced on the leased property, it is no defense to an action for the rent for the defendant to plead that he had no personal interest in the leased premises and that he had merely taken the lease in his own name as trustee or agent under an oral agreement to assign the lease to another party upon the happening of a future event. To be of any effect such understanding should also have been reduced to writing and incorporated in the contract.

3. SAME--Effect of Assignment of Lease. An assignment of a lease does not annul the lessee's obligation to pay rent unless the contract contains a stipulation to that effect.

C. W. Spencer, of Sedan, for the appellant.

S. H. Piper, and W. B. Grant, both of Independence, for the appellees.

OPINION

DAWSON, J.:

This was an action for rent due on an oil and gas lease. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs on defendant's answer and admissions, upon the ground that these constituted no defense.

Plaintiffs' petition alleged that they were the owners of certain lands which they leased for purposes of gas and oil development under a written contract signed by them and by defendant, in which among other matters it was provided--

"The party of the second part agrees to complete a well on said premises within one year from the date hereof, or pay at the rate of one hundred dollars for each additional three months such completion is delayed from the time above mentioned for the full completion of such well until a well is completed; and it is agreed that the completion of such well shall be and operate as a full liquidation of all rents under this provision during the remainder of the terms of this lease."

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant did not complete a well on the premises within one year, and that he had never drilled for gas or oil, and that the rent due under the lease had not been paid. They prayed judgment for the rent.

Defendant's answer admitted the execution of the lease, but alleged that he never had any personal interest in the transaction; that in November, 1915, the defendant and others were engaged in an effort to procure development of gas and oil in the vicinity of plaintiffs' land, and that they induced certain parties, McGinnis & Company, to survey the territory thereabout for gas and oil, and that McGinnis & Company agreed that if defendant and his associates would secure a block of leases in that neighborhood, including a lease of plaintiffs' land, they, McGinnis & Company, would put down a test well; and that pursuant thereto the defendant and his associates went about securing leases, including the one in controversy, which were all taken in the name of defendant, in trust or as agent, to be held by him until the test well should be commenced by McGinnis & Company, when "it was understood he would make and deliver said leases" to McGinnis & Company. Defendant alleged that this arrangement was fully explained by letter and orally to plaintiffs; and that defendant's brother--

"At that time explained to the plaintiff that said David Chaffin did not have any interest in said oil and gas leases whatever and would not have any interest whatever in the oil and gas leases which the plaintiff was executing to him, except that he was to hold them (as trustee) and in his name until a test well was commenced on this block of leases.

"That with this understanding the plaintiffs executed and returned said oil and gas lease, a copy of which is set out in plaintiffs' petition."

Defendant also alleged that these arrangements had been carried out and that a test well had been drilled within a half mile of plaintiffs' land; and--

"That defendant never at any time had any interest in and to the oil and gas lease sued upon in plaintiffs' petition, except that he was intrusted by the plaintiffs to hold the same for the protection of plaintiffs until such time as a test well was commenced on the block of leases in which plaintiffs' lease was included and then to transfer and deliver the same.

"That with the transfer and delivery of said oil and gas lease to the said W. F. McGinnis and Company the defendant's trust was fully carried out and complied with and that he has no further or other legal...