Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi
| Decision Date | 21 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 682-4235.) |
| Citation | 276 S.W. 190 |
| Parties | HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. v. KISHI. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by K. Kishi against the Humble Oil & Refining Company. From a judgment for nominal damages, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which reversed (261 S. W. 228), and both parties bring error. Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of District Court reformed, and as so reformed affirmed.
E. E. Townes and John C. Townes, Jr., both of Houston, D. C. Bland, of Orange, and G. P. Dougherty, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.
Holland & Holland, of Orange, for defendant in error.
In this case both the Humble Oil & Refining Company and K. Kishi have filed applications for writs of error, and there is here presented for review the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals on all questions discussed in its opinion. 261 S. W. 228. We agree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Civil Appeals on all questions except its holding that proof of the market value of the leasehold interest in the land involved did not in law furnish the measure of damages which should be awarded, and only such statement of the case is here made as is deemed necessary to a discussion of this holding.
K. Kishi, the owner of all the surface and three-fourths undivided interest in the oil and mineral rights, and Isaac Lang, the owner of the remaining one-fourth interest in the oil and mineral rights of 50 acres of land in Orange County, Tex., executed to the Humble Oil & Refining Company a lease granting to it the exclusive right to enter upon said land and drill oil wells and take therefrom the oil. This lease was of date December 23, 1919, but was not signed and acknowledged by Lang until January 29, 1920, and was thereafter delivered to said Humble Oil & Refining Company. By its provisions it was to remain in force for no longer period of time than three years from its date, unless within said three years drilling for oil was commenced. No drilling was begun within the time provided, and the lease expired. After the expiration of this lease, in January, 1923, oil was found on an adjoining tract of land in a well drilled near this 50 acres. On January 23, 1923, the Humble Oil & Refining Company entered upon this 50 acres of land, and began drilling an oil well thereon, claiming the exclusive right to the leasehold interest therein. It claimed that the lease had not expired, and that under its terms it did not expire until three years after it was signed and acknowledged by Lang and delivered. Kishi protested against this entry, and advised the Humble Oil & Refining Company that he would hold it responsible for any damages that might accrue to him. Lang, however, consented to the entry under the claim made.
The Humble Oil & Refining Company remained in possession under this entry until it completed the drilling of the well, which resulted in the failure to find oil, and it relinquished possession...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Slooten v. Larsen, Docket Nos. 62256
...but may be sued for damages caused by impairing the land's speculative value as a potential oil source, see Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi, 276 S.W. 190, 191 (Tex.Comm.App.1925), Kuntz, Old and New Solutions, supra, 86-88, Roberton, supra, 1232-1233, 1 Williams & Meyer, supra, § 229, p.......
-
Martel v. Hall Oil Co.
... ... Oil Company, the Midwest Refining Company and Pearl L. Eddy, ... defendants in error, to recover damages in the sum of $ ... We are ... cited to the case of Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi, ... (Tex. Com. App.) 276 S.W. 190, decided in 1925. The case ... is ... ...
-
Ohio Oil Co. v. Sharp
...Surety Company v. Marsh, 146 Okl. 261, 293 P. 1041, 1046; Rich v. Doneghey, supra; Cuff v. Koslosky, supra; Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Kishi, Tex.Com. App., 276 S.W. 190, on rehearing 291 S. W. It may be conceded for the purposes of this case only that the geophysical tests or experim......
-
Stephens v. Stephens
...of the oil when extracted or the equivalent of such portion, is a property right which the law protects." Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi (Tex. Com. App.) 276 S. W. 190. This lease, which conveys a determinable fee, granted to and vested in the lessees the title to the oil to be produced......
-
CHAPTER 2 GEOPHYSICAL "TRESPASS" IN LIGHT OF MODERN SEISMIC TECHNOLOGY
...but mineral owners were not parties to the suit). [114] 241 F.2d 586, 590, 7 O&GR 1291 (5th Cir. 1957) (construing Texas law). [115] 276 S.W. 190 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1925, judgm't adopted). Kishi was distinguished in Byrom v. Pendley, 717 S.W.2d 602, 605, 93 O&GR 419 (Tex. 1986). [116] On sec......
-
CHAPTER 9 DEFINING THE LESSEE'S COVENANTS TO DRILL AND DEVELOP A LEASE
...Civ. App. 1935, error ref'd). [198] Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi, 291 S.W. 538 (Tex. App. 1927); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi, 276 S.W. 190 (Tex. App. 1925). [199] Potter, 223 La. 274, 65 So. 2d 598 (La. 1953); Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Elkins, 2010 Ark. 481, 374 S.W.3d 678, 685 (......
-
CHAPTER 12 PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINERAL TITLE EXAMINERS
...Trust Co., 102 Mo.App.267, 76 S.W.641 (1903). [32] McClain v. Faraone, 369 A.2d 1090 (Del. 1977). [33] Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi, 276 S.W. 190, 191 (Tex. Comm. App. 1925), 291 S.W. 538 (Tex. Comm. App. 1927), on later appeal, 299 S.W. 687 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927, error ref'd). [34] Mu......
-
CHAPTER 1 CHOOSING BETWEEN AN HONEST BARGAIN AND NO BARGAIN: INFORMATION DISCLOSURE TO POTENTIAL LESSORS
...241 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1957). [38] See Angelloz v. Humble Oil & Refining 199 So. 656 (La. 1940). [39] Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi, 276 S.W. 190, (Tex. Com. App. 1925), 291 S.W. 538 (Tex. Com. App. 1927), aff'd 299 S.W. 687 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927). [40] American Surety Co. of New York v......