Ranger Cisco Oil Co. v. Consolidated Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 1295.)
• Parties: RANGER CISCO OIL CO. v. CONSOLIDATED OIL CO. OF TEXAS.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

239 S.W. 648

RANGER CISCO OIL CO. v. CONSOLIDATED OIL CO. OF TEXAS.^*

(No. 1295.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

February 16, 1922.

On the Merits, March 16, 1922.

Rehearing Denied April 13, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; Geo. L. Davenport, Judge.

Action by the Consolidated Oil Company of Texas against the Ranger Cisco Oil Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Alexander & Baldwin, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Barker & Barker, of Cisco, for appellee.

HARPER, C. J.

This case was tried in Eastland county, Tex., at a term ending February 5, 1921.

The records show the appeal bond (supersedeas) to have been filed April 1, 1921; therefore not within the time fixed by Rev. Civ. Stat. (V. S.) art. 2084, for its filing in order to confer jurisdiction upon this court. For that reason the appeal must be dismissed; and it is so ordered. Edens v. Cleaves (Tex. Civ. App.) 206 S. W. 722.

On the Merits.

The Consolidated Oil Company of Texas brought this action against the Ranger Cisco Oil Company in the sum of $7,892.57 for breach of contract by defendant to drill an oil well to the depth of 3,500 feet unless oil or gas was found in paying quantities at a lesser depth.

Defendant answered by general and special exceptions, general denial, and specially denied that it agreed to drill the well to a depth of 3,500 feet; that the plaintiff failed and refused to pay $5 per foot or $50 per day, as it agreed to do by the contract, and for that reason it was forced to stop drilling to its damage, etc.

The case was submitted to a jury upon special issues, and upon the verdict judgment was entered for plaintiff for the amount sued for. Hence this appeal.

The parts of the contract pertinent to the points of law urged here are:

"(1) That the Ranger Cisco Oil Company, appellant, for the consideration of $2.50 per foot from 1,700 feet in said well, as agreed to be drilled to the top of the lime, * * * and the further consideration of one-half of all water, gas, and other necessary bills and expenses for drilling of this well from 1,700 feet to the top of the lime. The party of the first part hereby assigns and conveys 7½ acres of the said 10 acres to the party of the second part, but excepts and reserves 2½ acres, being a square in the S. E. corner of said 10-acre tract.

"(2) It is further agreed * * * that after said drilling * * * has reached the top of the lime that said party of the second part thereafter shall pay to first party $5.00 per foot or $50.00 per day, said payment being optional with party of first part for the further drilling of said well, in an effort to secure oil in paying quantities.

"(3) * * * If the well is a producer of oil in paying quantities, * * * the first party agrees to reimburse second party the amount expended in the drilling, * * * but if oil is not found in paying quantities the party of the second part agrees to pay one-half of the expense of drawing the pipe. * * *

"(4) Party of the first part agrees with due diligence and dispatch to continue the drilling of the said well to the depth herein specified in this contract."

The depth agreed upon is not specified in the contract. In this respect the plaintiff alleged:

"That the defendant agreed orally at the time said contract was made that said well would be drilled to the depth of 3,500 feet unless oil or gas were found in paying quantities at a lesser depth."

The court submitted the following special issues, and they were answered as indicated:

"(1) Was there an oral agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant at the time the second contract in evidence was entered into that the well to be drilled would be drilled to the depth of 3,500 feet, unless oil or gas was found in paying quantities at a lesser depth? Answer Yes or No. Answer: Yes.

"(2) Did the plaintiff herein, at any time, fail or refuse to pay its proportional part of the expense of drilling the well through the lime? Answer Yes or No. Answer: No.

"(3) Did the plaintiff, through any of its authorized agents, notify defendant that it would not pay its proportional part of the expense of...