Livingston Oil Corporation v. Waggoner
Decision Date | 06 May 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 2470.) |
Citation | 273 S.W. 903 |
Parties | LIVINGSTON OIL CORPORATION v. WAGGONER. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; P. A. Martin, Judge.
Action by R. M. Waggoner against the Livingston Oil Corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Bonner, Bonner & Sanford and Albert G. Walker, all of Wichita Falls, and Albert T. Patrick, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.
Weeks, Morrow, Francis & Hankerson, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
This suit was brought in the district court of Wichita county, by R. M. Waggoner against the Livingston Oil Corporation to recover $5,000 alleged to be due him from defendant by reason of the sale of casing-head gas by said company, which gas was alleged to have been produced from land belonging to Waggoner. The appellant was operating a lease which was originally executed by Waggoner to A. R. Calloway in 1917, for the purpose of drilling, mining, and operating for oil, gas, or other minerals, which leasehold estate had by various conveyances been vested in the defendant oil company. The consideration expressed in the lease was $1 and the expense incurred and labor performed in the drilling of a well or wells; also, that the lessee should deliver to the credit of lessor one-eighth of all oil produced and saved, and that the lessee should pay to the lessor $300 each year in advance for the gas from each well where gas only was found. Producing oil wells were brought in, from which, in addition to oil, a substance known as "casing-head gas" was produced. On July 19, 1921, the Livingston Company made a contract with the Skelly Oil Company, in virtue of which the Skelly Company was to maintain a good vacuum on the wells for the life of the lease, and pay to the appellant 10 cents per thousand cubic feet for the casing-head gas sucked to its plant through its vacuum lines.
On trial of the case, which was had before the court without the intervention of a jury, judgment was rendered decreeing recovery by plaintiff Waggoner, and appellant brings the case to this court for review.
Appellant, by its first and second propositions, asserts, substantially, that the lease contract not providing for the payment of any royalty to the lessor by the lessee, except the equal one-eighth part of the oil produced, such contract did not require the payment of any royalty on the casing-head gas, for the reason that the payment being required to be made upon the "oil" does not include a requirement that it be paid upon "casing-head gas," and that the appellant was entitled to the casing-head gas without accounting to plaintiff for its value. Further, the contention is made in the second proposition that where the lessee has been able to save by-products (such as casing-head gas), which usually goes to waste, he is not required to pay any royalty thereon, and that the trial court erred in holding that appellant was obligated so to do.
Under these propositions, appellant claims that the established rule of practice in Texas recognizes that the granting clause of the lease vests the title to the minerals described in the lease in the lessee immediately upon the delivery of the instrument to the lessee, and that such title is not dependent upon the royalty obligation, citing many decisions to support these contentions; further, that as the title to the gas had vested in the lessee, he had, in virtue of his ownership, the right to do with it as he pleased.
These various propositions all revolve around the question as to whether the term "oil" includes casing-head gas. Taking up the consideration of that question, we find that the decisions are conflicting, and for the purpose of ascertaining whether the evidence and the law justified the trial court in the finding that casing-head gas was included as a constituent of oil, we will first discuss the evidence upon which he based his judgment.
Our conclusion from the evidence is, when speaking of a gas well, reference is had to a well producing commercial or dry gas. Vacuum is a suction carried on an oil well to remove the casing-head gas and to pull the oil through the sand. The first stage of an oil well is that of flowing, the second, pumping, and the third the application of the vacuum which sucks the gas remaining in the well. This process of applying a vacuum increases the oil production.
J. M. Stone, an expert witness for appellant, who states that he helped construct the first absorption plant in Oklahoma, testifying as to the nature of extracting casing-head gas, testifies:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. United States
...Locke v. Russell, 1915, 75 W.Va. 602, 84 S.E. 948; Wemple v. Producers' Oil Co., 1919, 145 La. 1031, 83 So. 232; Livingston Oil Corp. v. Waggoner, Tex.Civ.App.1925, 273 S.W. 903. Others hold that they are neither oil nor gas. Clymore Production Co. v. Thompson, D.C.Tex.1936, 13 F.Supp. 469;......
-
Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed
...113 Tex. 72, 252 S. W. 472, 475; Michie's Dig., Vol. 4, p. 599. It is well said by the court in the case of Livingston Oil Corporation v. Waggoner (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 903, 906: "It is to be assumed that parties to a contract know best what was meant by its terms, and are the less lia......
-
Reynolds v. McMan Oil & Gas Co.
...violate the parol evidence rule. In disposing of the case originally, it was held that under the decision in Livingston Oil Corporation v. Waggoner (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 903 (writ of error denied), an issue was raised under the pleadings and the admission referred to, as to plaintiffs'......
-
Poe v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
...casing-head gas and gasoline from the natural gas is an incident of production devolving upon the producer. Livingston Oil Corp. v. R. M. Waggoner (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 903. The covenants for operation and for production required the defendant to produce and save that which could have ......