Meyer v. Cox, 12437
| Decision Date | 01 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 12437,12437 |
| Parties | MEYER et ux. v. COX et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kirk & Sheppard, Cuero, Joe Kelly, Victoria, for appellant.
William S. Fly, Victoria, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of dismissal entered upon plaintiffs' refusal to amend after the trial court had sustained a special exception. A question of interpretation of a paragraph of an oil and gas lease is involved.
Plaintiffs, Oscar Meyer and wife, Irene Meyer, alleged that on July 9, 1946, they entered into an oil and gas lease with appellees, Rupert Cox and Taylor Refining Company, as lessees.
The petition states that a producing oil well was brought in upon the tract and that incidental thereto defendants had constructed upon the premises a salt-water pit, a gas flare and a tank battery consisting of two tanks surrounded by a large pit. It is averred that defendants have also driven large trucks and heavy vehicles over the land, cutting deep ruts and ditches therein. As a result of these actions plaintiffs claim damages.
A copy of the lease was attached to the petition. It provides that plaintiffs' tract (containing 10.84 acres) may be pooled with other lands in the immediate vicinity to make up units not to exceed 40 acres in size. The term of the lease is for a primary term of 90 days and 'as long thereafter as oil, gas or other mineral is produced from said land or land with which said land is pooled hereunder.' The land is leased and granted 'for the purpose of investigating, exploring, prospecting, drilling and mining for and producing oil, gas and all other minerals, laying pipe lines, building roads, tanks power stations, telephone lines and other structures thereon, to produce, save, take care of, treat, transport and own said products and housing its (lessee's) employees.'
The fifth paragraph of the lease reads as follows:
'5. Within the time limits above fixed, the lessees, their agents and employees shall have the right to go upon said lands and to prospect thereon for gas, oil, sulphur and other minerals at such location as shall be selected by lessees; provided, however, that no wells shall be bored or any operations under this lease conducted within 100 yards of any existing water well or building upon said premises without the written consent of lessors; and provided further, that lessees shall pay lessors for all damages done in said operation to the lands, trees, shrubs or to any structures, or to any livestock thereon, and, if any such damage be done by any agents, employees or licensees of lessees then lessees shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Getty Oil Co. v. Jones
...of the other. None of the decisions allows recovery of damages unless the contract requires payment of damages, Meyer v. Cox, 252 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.Civ.App.--1952, writ ref'd), absent a showing that the owner of the dominant estate has exercised its rights in a negligent manner or has used mo......
-
Vest v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...1352 (1957). Additionally, the lessee, by express provision, can be required to pay for the use of the surface. Meyer v. Cox, 252 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952). Consequently, it appears that the payments here in question were received for the various facility locations as a result of spe......
-
Reading & Bates Offshore Drilling Co. v. Jergenson, 4359
...much of the surface and to use it in such manner as is reasonably necessary for proper development of its lease. It cites Meyer v. Cox, Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W.2d 207 (writ ref.), and Placid Oil Co. v. Lee, Tex.Civ.App., 243 S.W.2d 860. We agree with appellant's statement of the law. We think......
-
Weaver v. Reed
...reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the lease. See Placid Oil Co. v. Lee, Tex.Civ.App., 243 S.W.2d 860; Meyer v. Cox, Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Writ Ref.). Therefore, it the jury had found that the cattle died from licking lubricant from the pipe Weaver would not hav......