Pine v. Webster
| Decision Date | 06 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 16210 |
| Citation | 246 P. 429,118 Okla. 12,1926 OK 331 |
| Parties | PINE v. WEBSTER. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Oil and Gas--Construction of Lease--"Found in Paying Quantities." The phrase "paying quantities," as used in the extension provision of an oil and gas lease, when applied to production of oil, means such a quantity of oil as will pay a profit on the cost of operating the well; and the words "found in paying quantities," when applied to the production of oil, mean not only discovery, but taking it out of the ground in pursuance of other warranties and purposes of the contract.
2. Guardian and Ward--Acceptance of Payments by Guardian After Minor's Majority Not Binding. Payments made to the guardian of a minor after majority, of which the minor, now of age, has no notice, is not binding upon him for any purpose.
3. Equity--Action by Lessee to Quiet His Title--Issues Determinable. Where plaintiff claims possession of the premises and brings his action to protect the same by restraining the defendant from interfering with his property situated on said premises, and to cancel the claims of defendant adverse to his possession and rights, the action is one of equitable cognizance, and the court has jurisdiction to determine all the issues presented by the pleadings.
Hiatt & Hannigan and Patterson & Dooley, for plaintiff in error.
Poe & Lundy and R. E. Morgan, for defendant in error.
¶1 The question involved in this case is the validity of an oil and gas lease made with the guardian of a new-born Creek minor allottee to be in force during said minor's minority, upon certain conditions, and to continue in force after minority in case oil or gas was found in paying quantities during the minor's minority. W. B. Pine, plaintiff in error, was defendant in the trial court, and S. S. Webster, defendant in error, was plaintiff, and, for convenience, we will refer to them as they appeared in the trial court.
¶2 The material facts necessary for our consideration are substantially as follows: Laura M. Myers was a Creek minor allottee, and owned the land in controversy. She was born January 27, 1905, and her minority would expire on January 26, 1923. On August 19, 1913, the minor's guardian executed to defendant, W. B. Pine, an oil and gas lease on her allotment, being in section 3, T. 11 N., R. 11 E., in Okfuskee county, which was to be in force during her minority, upon condition of development and a royalty interest or annual rental payments in lieu of development, and to continue in force after minority, if oil or gas was found in paying quantities during minority; the language of the lease contract in this particular being as follows:
"And by these presents does grant, demise, lease, and let unto the said second party, his heirs, successors, or assigns, for the sole and only purpose of mining and operating for oil and gas, and of laying pipe lines, and building tanks, power stations and structures thereon to produce and take care of said products, during the minority of said ward, and as much longer thereafter as oil or gas is found in paying quantities."
¶3 The defendant, W. B. Pine, paid the annual rentals provided for in the contract, but did not commence development by drilling his first test well for oil and gas until about December 23, 1922, in which he struck a showing of oil at a depth of about 2,477 feet on January 23, 1923, just three days before the allottee reached the date of her majority. As soon as a showing of oil appeared the work of drilling was stopped. Oil and water ran in the well to a distance of from 900 to 1,000 feet. This oil was estimated at about l 1/2 to two barrels per hour, and the water and oil caused the well to cave for a short distance, and the same was bailed and poured out down the hill as slush. Some of the witnesses testified that "it looked like a pretty good well at first." This bailing-out process was carried on until after January 27th, and none of the oil saved for any purpose. While this well was being drilled another, called well No. 2, was commenced on another part of the lease, and was brought in as a gas well about January 30, 1923. After the gas well came in they moved back to well No. 1 and drilled to a depth of about 2,885 feet, but found no oil beyond the depth of the first showing. They plugged the well back to the depth where the first oil was found, and about February 5, 1923, commenced pumping the oil and water from said depth, and for about 15 days ran the same into a tank. The amount of oil and water that was pumped into the tank is not definitely estimated. Defendant then plugged the well and abandoned it. The witnesses testified that they used some of the water out of the tank for further operations on the lease, but none of the oil was used for any purpose. The defendant did not make any division of the oil, they say was in the tank, with the owner of the lease, nor did he offer to pay anything for that part the owner was entitled to. Defendant paid to the guardian of the allottee the contract price on the gas well for one year, which was deposited in a bank by the guardian to the credit of the allottee, and she checked on the account from time to time, but she testified that she did not know that any of the funds in the account came from such payment, and there is no proof that the guardian informed her of the payment, but rather to the contrary.
¶4 The record discloses that defendant made no efforts at future development on the leased premises until the spring of 1924. On March 14th, of that year, the said Laura M. Myers, who had by marriage become Hightower, joined by her husband, executed an oil and gas lease to the plaintiff, S. S. Webster, who commenced development, under the terms of his lease, and defendant interfered with plaintiff's operations and renewed his efforts to drill again on the lease, and this action was brought to enjoin defendant from interfering with plaintiff's rights, or setting up any claim against his rights in said land, and to cancel any claims of defendant against his title, and to quiet the title of his oil and gas lease contract. The issues joined on the question as to whether or not defendant found oil or gas, in paying quantities, under his lease with the guardian, prior to January 27, 1923, the date on which the allottee and owner of the land reached her majority. After hearing the evidence the court stated:
¶5 The journal entry states:
"The court finds from the evidence introduced that neither oil or gas was found in paying quantities during the minority of said ward, and further finds that said Laura M. Myers, now Hightower, reached her majority on January 27, 1923, and that because of the fact that no oil or gas was found in paying quantities prior to said time, the oil and gas lease of the defendant, W. B. Pine, expired on said date, which was the end of the minority of the said Laura M. Myers, now Hightower."
¶6 Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and defendant brings the case here for review.
¶7 1. Defendant contends that the findings of the court, that neither oil nor gas was found in paying quantities during the minority of the allottee, and judgment entered thereon, were erroneous. He says the evidence does not support this finding and judgment. It is contended that "found in paying quantities" means any quantity of oil that "pays a profit, although it may never repay the cost of the well, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Ward
...Levindale, etc., Co. v. Fluke, 48 Okla. 480, 150 P. 481 (where land was not occupied by either party or their tenants); and Pine v. Webster, 118 Okla. 12, 246 P. 429 (where oil and gas lessee was ousted from possession by rival claimant); and Wilson v. Cox, 100 Okla. 300, 229 P. 267 (to qui......
- Pine v. Webster