Producers Supply Co. v. Maple Leaf Oil Co.

• Citation: 103 Okla. 224,229 P. 1037,1924 OK 933
• Decision Date: 14 October 1924
• Docket Number: Case Number: 13864
• Parties: PRODUCERS SUPPLY CO. v. MAPLE LEAF OIL CO.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1924 OK 933

229 P. 1037

103 Okla. 224

PRODUCERS SUPPLY CO. v. MAPLE LEAF OIL CO.

Case Number: 13864

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 14, 1924

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Law of Case.

A prior adjudication by this court makes the law of the case.

2. Same--Damages to Leasehold--Evidence.

This court held in a prior appeal in this case in a decision reported in 82 Okla. 120, 198 P. 577, that the measure of damages for a trespass to a leasehold estate is the diminution of value caused by the injury, and that the testimony in such case must relate to the value of the lease immediately prior to the date of the trespass, and immediately thereafter, and that the introduction of testimony as to the value of the lease several months prior to the date of the alleged injury is reversible error. This holding made the law of the case for the second trial.

3. Same--Judgment Sustained.

Testimony as to the market value of oil and gas lease held admissible and sufficient to sustain recovery in trespass. Record examined, and held, that the record in second trial discloses evidence properly admissible under the law of the case as announced by the prior decision. Held, further, that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the lower court, based on the verdict of the jury after the order of the lower court as to a remittitur has been complied with. Held, further, no reversible error in record.

Samuel H. Crossland, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Franklin H. Griggs and C. R. Thurlwell, for defendant in error.

LYONS, C.

¶1 This case was before this court and was reversed by opinion of the court reported in 82 Okla. 120, 198 P. 577. In the decision the court held:

"In an action to recover damages to a leasehold estate held under an oil and gas lease for injuries alleged to have been committed on the 11th day of November, 1915, wherein the trial court over objections permitted the introduction of testimony as to the value of the lease several months prior to the date of the alleged injury, held, that the same constitutes reversible error."

¶2 Upon a new trial of the case a verdict was rendered for the defendant in error in the sum of $ 2,000. A remittitur of $ 500 was ordered by the trial court, motion for new trial was overruled, and a judgment rendered for $ 1,500, the amount of the verdict rendered at the prior trial. This proceeding is to reverse said judgment in the sum of $ 1,500. The contentions of the appellants may be summarized as follows:

(1) That the record contains the same error for which the cause was heretofore reversed.

(2) That there is no evidence in the record to sustain the verdict.

(3) That the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that nominal damages only could be recovered.

¶3 With reference to the first error alleged, it appears that the trespass involved here consisted in the wrongful entry upon a leasehold estate for oil and gas, and in part at least, dismanteling said leasehold of equipment, and further removing essential equipment from producing wells which were at the time shut down. Witnesses testified as to the value of the leasehold estate immediately before the trespass, taking into consideration that the lease had been theretofore producing oil in paying quantities, and taking into consideration further that the lease had not been operated for a period of 11 months. We think that this was not error, but that this testimony was properly admitted. The admission of such testimony plainly did not violate the rule announced in the prior decision. As to the second error alleged, to the effect that there is no evidence in the record to sustain the verdict, we are unable to agree with appellant's contention. Complaint is made that the witnesses who testified as to the market value of this property at the time of the trespass took into consideration the fact that the lease had produced oil 11 months prior to the time of the trespass, at which time the operations were shut down. It is our view, however, that the condition of the lease at the time it had been last operated was a circumstance which might properly be taken into consideration with all of the other facts...