Leon v. Gulf Production Co.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 9439.,9439. |
| Citation | 35 S.W.2d 1101 |
| Parties | LEON v. GULF PRODUCTION CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Sam C. Polk, Judge.
Suit by Isadore Leon, trustee, against the Gulf Production Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Cole, Cole, Patterson & Kemper and Atkinson & Gaugler, all of Houston, for appellant.
John E. Green, Jr., Peveril O. Settle, and John Broughton, all of Houston, for appellee.
On the 31st day of January, 1918, Elmer Fisher and wife, Martha Fisher, leased to United Petroleum Company certain lands out of which the land involved in the suit hereinafter mentioned is taken. The consideration moving the lessors to make the lease and the conditions and provisions thereof pertinent to the issues presented on this appeal are as follows:
"That for and in consideration of the sum of One Hundred Dollars to us cash in hand paid by said lessee the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and the further sum of One Hundred Dollars to be paid monthly thereafter until oil, gas, or other minerals are produced from said premises herein leased in a sufficient quantity that the royalty paid lessor hereinafter provided shall amount to the said sum of One Hundred Dollars per month; or until said premises are abandoned whereupon lessee shall forfeit all rights hereunder and this contract shall be null and void and of no further force and effect, and it is understood that written notice to the lessor is necessary setting forth said lessee's intention of abandoning said premises before said premises shall be considered as abandoned; we hereby demise, lease and grant unto said lessee, and its assigns, all of the oil, gas, sulphur and other minerals in and under the following described tract of land; and the exclusive right to prospect and operate thereon for oil, gas, sulphur and other minerals, together with the right-of-way, right to lay pipe lines over, to use water, gas and oil to operate said property, taken from said premises to erect derricks, to build tanks and to place all necessary machinery or structures on said premises, and to remove all property at any time, that may be placed on said land during the term of this lease by lessee or its assigns."
Here the land leased is described; then the instrument continues:
On the 31st day of October, 1918, Elmer Fisher and wife, Martha Fisher, conveyed the fee to the land leased to the United Petroleum Company, hereinafter called petroleum company, to the Gulf Production Company, hereinafter called production company.
Subleases were made to 30 acres of the leased premises to parties other than to the plaintiff in this suit and his assigns, leaving 34.7 acres unassigned by the petroleum company.
On the 9th day of July, 1927, the petroleum company assigned to Guy Hamilton Winfree its lease as to 34.70 acres of the land it had leased from Fisher and wife. Winfree in turn assigned his lease to G. W. Hindman, trustee, and Hindman, trustee, assigned to Isadore Leon on the 1st of March, 1929, all interest he as trustee and Winfree as cestui que trust had in the certain 10 acres of the land involved in this suit, a part of said 34.7 acres of land.
Neither the petroleum company, original lessee, nor any of its assigns, including Isadore Leon, at any time availed itself or themselves of the option of putting an end to the contract of lease by declaring in writing or otherwise that it or they were satisfied that no oil, gas, sulphur, or other minerals could be produced from the leased premises, as provided for in the lease contract. The production company, to whom the fee to all the land was conveyed by Fisher and wife, was paid the $100 per month for ten years, as provided in the contract, and a tender of $100 was made to it for the month next after the end of the ten-year period, which tender was refused by the production company upon its contention that the lease had expired by its terms at the end of the ten-year period. A small amount of oil was produced from the premises during the first year of the lease, but no oil, gas, or other minerals were thereafter produced in paying quantities during the remainder of said ten-year period. Upon the declaration of the production company that the lease had expired, and its refusal to accept the tender made, Isadore Leon brought this suit against the production company in the form of trespass to try title to a leasehold interest in and to the 10 acres of land hereinbefore mentioned, which was assigned to him by Hindman, trustee.
After alleging the facts as stated in the foregoing statement, the plaintiff alleged substantially that the original lessee, petroleum company, and those claiming under it, have spent about $150,000 in developing the leased premises and in prospecting for oil, gas, and other minerals; that several wells have been drilled on the premises which proved that the same is capable of producing oil and gas in paying quantities; that by the actions of the defendant in asserting the lease at an end and its refusal to accept the rental due thereunder a cloud has been cast upon plaintiff's title to the interest owned and claimed by him; and that because of such cloud and adverse claim it is impossible for him to finance the drilling of wells to produce oil and gas or to sell the same, to appellant's damage. He prayed that title to the leasehold claimed by him be established. He tendered into court the rentals claimed by him to be due and asked that defendant be required to accept same, and the cloud upon his said title be removed; that defendant be enjoined from interfering in his possession and development of said ten acres of land for the purposes designated in the lease, and that he have judgment against defendant for $10,000 damages.
By defendant's amended answer upon which it went to trial, it denied generally the allegations of the plaintiff and entered its plea of not guilty.
A jury was impaneled and sworn to try the case, but upon the closing of the evidence by all parties the court instructed a verdict for defendant. From such judgment the plaintiff, Isadore Leon, has appealed.
Appellant substantially contends: First, that the lease contract entered into between Fisher and wife and the petroleum company by its plain terms provides that it shall continue in force until the lessee, or its assigns, shall declare that it or they are satisfied that no oil, gas, sulphur, or other minerals can be produced from the leased premises in paying quantities, provided the lessee or its assigns shall pay to lessors or their assigns $100 per month during the life of said lease contract, and that since the undisputed evidence shows that no such declaration was ever made, and that the production company, assignee of the original lessor, was paid the sum of $100 per month for ten years and was tendered $100 by appellant for himself and all other lessees for the month next after said ten-year period, the court should have held that the lease was in force and effect and have instructed a verdict for appellant upon his request therefor; second, that in the event the construction of the contract first contended for cannot be placed on the same, that the clause cannot be read out of the lease and therefore creates an ambiguity to be explained by parol testimony; and, third, that independent of the clause mentioned, the beginning of a well prior to January 31, 1928, the end of the ten-year period, beginning on the 31st day of January, 1918, the date of the contract, which was completed as a producer on February 22, 1928, and which would have continued to produce except for interference on the part of appellee, and the payment or tender of rentals, perpetuated the lease.
It is the contention of appellee that the terms of the contract of lease were plain, clear, and unambiguous; that the clause "or until lessee is satisfied that oil, gas, sulphur or other minerals in paying quantities cannot be produced from said premises," was but an option reserved by and allowed to the lessee to at any time end the contract and release itself of any obligation to pay lessors further monthly payments of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simons v. McDaniel
...section 941, Rev. Laws 1910, required to be in writing." The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Galveston, in the case of Leon v. Gulf Production Co., 35 S.W.2d 1101, 1104, in considering an oil lease for a ten-year period and as longer as oil should be produced, or until lessee should be sat......
-
Simons v. Mcdaniel
...941, Rev. Laws 1910, required to be in writing." ¶31 The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Galveston, in the case of Leon v. Gulf Production Co., 35 S.W.2d 1101, in considering an oil lease for a ten-year period and as much longer as oil should be produced, or until lessee should be satisfie......
-
Southland Royalty Co. v. Pan American Petro. Corp.
...§ 142 and authorities therein cited. Fourth: Courts must, if possible, give effect to all parts of a contract. Leon v. Gulf Production Co. (1931, Tex.Civ.App.), 35 S.W.2d 1101(3), writ refused; City of Stamford v. King (1940, Tex.Civ.App.), 144 S.W.2d 923, writ refused; Chapa v. Reid (1952,......
-
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Southland Royalty Co.
...Oil & Refining Co. et al., 126 Tex. 450, 86 S.W.2d 1077 (1935); Smith v. Liddell et al.,367 S.W.2d 662 (Sup.Ct.1963); Leon v. Gulf Production Co., 35 S.W.2d 1101, (Tex.Civ.App., err. ref.). At the same time, the language used by the parties should be given its plain grammatical meaning unle......