Producers' Supply Co. v. Maple Leaf Oil Co.

Decision Date31 May 1921
Docket NumberCase Number: 10132
Citation1921 OK 201,82 Okla. 120,198 P. 577
PartiesPRODUCERS'' SUPPLY CO. v. MAPLE LEAF OIL CO.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. Landlord and Tenant--Injuries to Leasehold--Measure of Damages. The measure of damages for injury to a leasehold estate is the difference in the market value immediately before and after the injury, subject to the qualifications that if such property as may be destroyed or removed although it is a part of the realty, has a value without reference to the soil on which it stands or out of which it grows, a recovery may be for the value of the thing destroyed or removed, and not for the difference in the value of the land or leasehold before and after such destruction or injury.

2. Same--Action for Damages by Oil Lessee--Evidence. 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.

Bell & Fellows, for plaintiff in error.

C. R. Thurlwell, for defendant in error.

KENNAMER, J.

¶1 The Maple Leaf Oil Company, defendant in error, commenced this action in the district court of Tulsa county to recover from the Producers'' Supply Company, plaintiff in error, $ 7,000 damages. The parties herein will be referred to as they appeared in the court below. The plaintiff, for cause of action, in substance alleged that it was the owner of a thirty-two and one-half (32 1/2) acre lease in Creek county, Oklahoma, equipped for producing oil and gas; that on or about the 11th day of November, 1915, the defendant, without any right or authority, entered in and upon said land, broke and destroyed the power and removed property therefrom, the amount of the property removed being unknown to the plaintiff; that the value of the lease on November 11, 1915, was the sum of $ 7,000, and that the value of the lease after the acts complained of was the sum of $ 3,500. The defendant denied in general the allegations of the petition, alleging that it secured title to the personal property on said lease by a purchase at a sheriff''s sale for taxes, but that when it endeavored to take possession of the property it was enjoined by the plaintiff. Upon the issues joined a trial was had to a jury, which resulted in a verdict of $ 1,500 for the plaintiff. The court, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, entered judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $ 1,500. To reverse this judgment, the defendant has appealed to this court, presenting three assignments of error:

First. The court erred in overruling the motion of the defendant for a new trial.
Second. The court erred in overruling the demurrer of the defendant to the evidence of the plaintiff.
Third. The court erred in admitting evidence of the plaintiff over the objections of the defendant.

¶2 We have carefully examined the pleadings in this cause and the entire record, and we are of the opinion that the third assignment of error should be sustained. The trial court, over the objection of the defendant, permitted the plaintiff to introduce testimony as to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT