Placid Oil Co. v. Byrd
| Decision Date | 25 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 45069,45069 |
| Citation | 217 So.2d 17 |
| Parties | PLACID OIL COMPANY v. Lawrence BYRD. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Boyd, Holifield & Harper, Laurel, for appellant.
Walker & Sullivan, Laurel, for appellee.
Appellee sued appellant in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County, seeking damages for injuries to the surface of lands owned by appellee, and on which appellant operated an oil well. A judgment for $1,360 was recovered and this appeal follows.
The declaration charged appellee was owner of the surface of the lands where appellant was operating, and appellant the owner of minerals thereunder, as well as the operator for other mineral owners; that an oil well was drilled and operated on said lands from which the alleged damages resulted.
Among other errors, there is assigned the fact that the court refused an instruction that no damages could be awarded for trespass. Appellee cross-appealed, assigning as error the giving of an instruction that punitive damages could not be awarded.
It is not necessary to discuss other errors assigned for these two bring into view that which necessitates a reversal.
The case was filed and tried by appellee on the grounds of trespass and nuisance. Appellee's instructions were based upon that theory and none submitted to the jury the question of appellant's negligence, if any, in its operations, but rather made liability absolute, if certain matters occurred.
Appellee bases his case of trespass and nuisance under, Southland Co. v. Aaron, 221 Miss. 59, 72 So.2d 161, 49 A.L.R.2d 243 (1954); Southland Co. v. Aaron, 224 Miss 780, 80 So.2d 823 (1955); and Love Petroleum Co. v. Jones, 205 So.2d 274 (Miss.1967). There can be added to these cases that of Richardson v. Byrd et ux. (November 4, 1968), 215 So.2d 424, decided by this Court. These cases however are not applicable here.
In Southland, appellant was operating a refinery and operated in such a manner as to permit refuse to escape therefrom and flow into a creek which crossed appellee's land. The refinery had no title or interest in the lands of the appellee. Appellee owned lands close enough to the refinery that when refuse entered the creek, it would flow down through the lands of the appellee.
In the Love Petroleum case, appellee owned a 900-acre farm through which a creek ran, but on which the well in question was not situated. In other words, the oil well was situated on one tract of land in which the appellee had no interest, and as in Southland, refuse was permitted to escape, run into a creek, and by means of the creek through and across the lands of the appellee.
Richardson, above mentioned, and not yet reported, involved a similar situation; that is, damage to land near...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bynum v. Mandrel Industries, Inc.
...It is true that ordinarily suits of this nature must be predicated upon the negligence of the seismograph crew. Placid Oil Company v. Byrd,217 So.2d 17 (Miss.1969). In the instant case, however, the record shows on the issue of negligence that the land owner, at the time he contracted with ......
-
Bolivar v. R & H Oil and Gas Co., Inc.
...for damages caused to the property. See Charles F. Hayes & Assoc., Inc. v. Blue, 233 So.2d 127, 128 (Miss.1970); Placid Oil Co. v. Byrd, 217 So.2d 17, 18 (Miss. 1968); Cities Serv. Oil Co. v. Corley, 197 So.2d 244, 246 (Miss.1967); see also Walters v. Inexco Oil Co., 511 F.Supp. 21 (S.D.Mis......
-
EOG Resources, Inc. v. Turner
...than reasonably necessary for its operations.3See Charles F. Hayes & Assoc. v. Blue, 233 So.2d 127, 128 (Miss. 1970); Placid Oil Co. v. Byrd, 217 So.2d 17, 18 (Miss.1968). It must be emphasized that this right enures to the mineral estate in the absence of surface leases or other agreements......
-
Charles F. Hayes & Associates, Inc. v. Blue
...demurrer for the defendants. We differentiated between actions based upon negligence, trespass and nuisance. In Placid Oil Company v. Byrd, 217 So.2d 17 (Miss.1968), at page 18, we said that, where the minerals are owned by persons with the right of ingress other than the surface owners of ......
-
CHAPTER 3 RIGHTS OF ACCESS BETWEEN SURFACE OWNERS AND MINERAL LESSEES
...rights with reasonable regard from those of the other." Louisiana Revised Statutes 31:11. Mississippi Placid Oil Company v. Byrd, 217 So. 2d 17 (Miss. 1968) (when minerals have been severed from surface each party is charged with the duty of exercising a due regard for the rights of the oth......
-
CHAPTER 10 NEGOTIATING A SURFACE USE AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE LANDS
...Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913, 927 (Col.1997); Lindsey v. Wilson, 332 S.W2d 641 (Ky. 1960); Placid Oil Co. v. Byrd, 217 So.2d 17 (Miss. 1970); Amoco Oil Co. v. Carter Farms Co., 703 P.2d 894 (N.M. 1985); Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Pawnes-Tulsa Petroleum Co., 34 Okla 775, 127 P......
-
CHAPTER 3 OPERATING AGREEMENTS AND OTHER AGREEMENTS AMONG PRODUCTION OWNERS - DEVELOPING THE PROSPECT AFTER THE TEST WELL
...Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913, 927 (Col. 1997); Lindsey v. Wilson, 332 S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1960); Placid Oil Co. v. Byrd, 217 So.2d 17 (Miss. 1970); Amoco Oil Co. v. Carter Farms Co., 703 P.2d 894 (N.M. 1985); Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Pawnes-Tulsa Petroleum Co., 34 Okla 775, 127......