Papoose Oil Co. v. Rainey

• Decision Date: 27 March 1923
• Docket Number: Case Number: 13880
• Citation: 213 P. 882,1923 OK 189,89 Okla. 110
• Parties: PAPOOSE OIL CO. v. RAINEY et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1923 OK 189

213 P. 882

89 Okla. 110

PAPOOSE OIL CO. v. RAINEY et al.

Case Number: 13880

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 27, 1923

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Objections and Exceptions--Findings.

The failure of the trial court to make more specific findings of fact is not reviewable in the absence of a request for additional findings or exception taken to the failure of the trial court to make additional findings.

2. Oil and Gas--Cancellation of Lease for Failure to Develop--Cancellation in Part.

A court of equity will declare a forfeiture of an oil and gas lease because of the breach of an implied covenant to diligently operate and develop the property when such forfeiture will effectuate justice, but the granting of such relief depends upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular case; and if the evidence shows that a part of the leased premises under an oil and gas lease has been properly developed with reasonable diligence by the lessee, and other parts have not, the court may cancel the lease as to the undeveloped portion and permit the lessee to continue to operate the developed part thereof.

3. Same--Prerequisite to Forfeiture--Demand by Lessor for Development.

In case of the breach of an implied covenant to properly develop an oil and gas lease, the lessor must notify the lessee and demand that the lessee comply with the implied covenants before a court of equity will grant a forfeiture.

4. Same--Findings of Nondevelopment--Evidence.

Evidence examined, and, held, that the findings of the trial court that the leased premises have not been properly developed is not clearly against the weight of the evidence, and the judgment of the lower court should not be disturbed.

Error from Superior Court. Okmulgee County; H. R. Christopher, Judge.

Action by Robert M. Rainey and others against the Papoose Oil Company for cancellation of oil lease. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

B. C. Conner, Beeman Strong, and Ames, Chambers, Lowe & Richardson, for plaintiff in error.

D. H. Linebaugh, Rainey & Flynn, W. F. Semple, and Calvin Jones, for defendants in error.

COCHRAN, J.

¶1 This action was commenced by the defendants in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, against the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as defendant, for the cancellation of an oil and gas lease on 40 acres of land. One of the grounds for cancellation was a failure to diligently develop, and on that issue the trial court found:

"That the premises involved herein have not been properly developed for oil and gas purposes with reasonable diligence by the defendant."

¶2 The defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to make certain specific findings of fact in connection with the diligence in the development of this property. Upon the conclusion of the evidence, defendant made requests for findings of fact and propounded a number of interrogatories to be answered by the trial court. The case was taken under advisement, and some days thereafter the findings of the court were filed and judgment rendered on the same day. To all of which a general exception on the part of the defendant was noted. No requests were made for additional findings at that time, and no exception was taken by the defendant advising the court that the findings were incomplete and were not sufficiently in compliance with the interrogatories which had theretofore been propounded. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion the defendant cannot now urge as error the failure of the trial court to make more specific findings. Bridge v. Eggan, 17 Kan. 589; Else v. Freeman, 72 Kan. 666, 83 P. 409; Allen v. Wildman, 38 Okla. 652, 134 P. 1106.

¶3 It is next urged that the finding of the trial court and the judgment rendered are clearly against the weight of the evidence. The rule applicable to cases of this kind was announced in Pelham Petroleum Co. v. North, 78 Okla. 39, 188 P. 1069, as follows:

"It is now well settled that a court of equity will declare a forfeiture of an oil and gas lease because of the breach of an implied covenant to diligently operate and develop the property when such forfeiture will effectuate justice, but the granting of such relief depends upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular case."

¶4 This court has also held that in cases of a breach of the implied covenant to properly develop, the lessor must notify the lessee and demand that the lessee comply with the implied covenant Wapa Oil & Development Co. v. McBride, 84 Okla. 184, 201 P. 984. An examination of the evidence convinces us that the finding of the trial court that the lessor had not diligently developed the portion of the lease involved in this case is not clearly against the weight of the evidence. While the 49 acres in controversy is a portion of a lease covering 160 acres, on the remaining portion of which there has been considerably more development than on the 40 in controversy. this court in the third paragraph of the syllabus of Pelham Petroleum Co. v. North, 78 Okla. 39, 188 P. 1069, said:

"A court of equity has the power to conform its decrees to the varying circumstances of each particular case, and if the evidence shows that a part of the leased premises under an oil and gas lease has been properly developed with reasonable diligence by the lessee, and other parts have not, the court may cancel the lease as to the undeveloped portions and permit the lessee to continue to operate the developed part thereof."

¶5 The testimony discloses that the plaintiff Rainey purchased the land covered by the lease in...