Seamans Oil Co. v. Guy

Decision Date21 October 1925
Docket Number(No. 699-4258.)
Citation276 S.W. 424
PartiesSEAMANS OIL CO. et al. v. GUY et al.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Action by J. H. Guy and another against the Seamans Oil Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff was reformed and affirmed in 239 S. W. 696. On certified question from Court of Civil Appeals. Question answered.

See, also, 262 S. W. 473.

Conner & McRae, of Eastland, for plaintiffs in error.

Bishop, Scott & Sparks, of Gorman, for State Bank & Trust Co.

Grisham Bros., of Eastland, for defendants in error.

BISHOP, J.

This case is submitted on certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals of the Eighth Supreme Judicial District.

The facts are as follows: J. H. Guy and his wife, B. A. Guy, on the 30th day of July, 1915, executed an oil and mineral lease to T. J. Neal, his successors and assigns, on land owned by them "for the purpose of exploiting same for the production of minerals." This instrument by its terms grants and conveys "all the oil, gas, and other minerals in and under" the land with an exclusive right of drilling and operating thereon for oil and gas for the term of three years from its date, and also the right to extend the time in which to begin such operations for successive periods of six months on condition that the grantee or his assigns "on or before the first day of each respective period of six months pay to the grantors" or deposit to their credit in the Farmers' State Bank of Gorman the sum of $240, providing that if such payments are not made, the lease shall terminate, and further providing that such successive periods shall not exceed in aggregate five years from the date of said lease. The lease further provides that should oil, gas, or other minerals be found in paying quantities, the grantee or his assigns "shall become at once vested with an estate in and to all the minerals underlying said land with the right to produce the same and any and all the same as long as any of the said minerals shall be produced in paying quantities," and shall pay to the grantors or their assigns one-eighth of all oil produced and saved, $100 per annum for each well from which gas is used, and "what under all circumstances may be a reasonable royalty" for any other minerals.

This lease having been assigned to plaintiffs in error, Seamans Oil Company and Empire Gas & Fuel Company, they, on July 2, 1918, deposited $240 in accordance with the terms of the contract and continued to make such deposits for each six months thereafter until the lease by its terms expired; the drilling of no well or effort to develop the production of other minerals having been begun. J. H. Guy refused to accept any of these rental deposits and instructed the bank to return the money so deposited to the plaintiffs in error. The bank, however, did not do this, but placed same to the credit of what it termed an escrow account.

On March 6, 1919, Guy and his wife filed suit against the Seamans Oil Company in the district court of Eastland county for the cancellation of said mineral lease, alleging that it was procured through fraud and was without consideration; that the description of the land in said lease was insufficient to define any particular land; and that no renewals or rentals had been paid and accepted by the lessors to extend the time in which the lessee agreed to begin operations. They also alleged other grounds for which they sought cancellation not necessary here to mention. The Seamans Oil Company filed its answer resisting cancellation, and alleging that by reason of the institution of the suit to cancel it had been deterred from developing the land and prospecting thereon for the discovery of oil and gas, and that in equity it ought not to be required to develop said land and expend large sums of money during the pendency of the suit to cancel. It prayed that it be decreed an extension of the life of said lease for such additional time as would be equal to the time that said suit was pending. The Empire Gas & Fuel Company intervened, also resisting cancellation of the lease.

On June 25, 1920, the Seamans Oil Company wrote the bank not to pay J. H. Guy or his wife any of the sums deposited by it unless otherwise notified.

Just two weeks before July 30, 1920, when the lease by its terms expired, the suit seeking cancellation was dismissed at the request of Guy and his wife. Thereafter on August 13, 1920, J. H. Guy drew a check on the bank for $960, directing that payment be made "out of the account deposited * * * by Seamans Oil Company and the Empire Gas & Fuel Company." Payment of this check was refused by the bank, and on August 24, 1920, J. H. Guy instituted this suit against the bank for said sum of $960. The bank made answer, alleging the facts in regard to the deposit of the sums of money as above recited, the refusal of Guy to accept same as a credit to his account, and the direction by the Seamans Oil Company not to pay the amount deposited to Guy or his wife. It assumed the attitude of a stakeholder and tendered all money deposited by the Seamans Oil Company and Empire Gas & Fuel Company into court for the benefit of the real owners and prayed that said oil and gas companies be made parties to the suit.

The Seamans Oil Company and Empire Gas & Fuel Company intervened in the suit, claiming all the money deposited by them and alleged that the conduct of Guy and his wife, in repudiating their lease contract, refusing to accept the deposit made by them, and in filing and prosecuting their suit to cancel the lease, estopped them and was a bar to their right to recover the rentals or payments provided for by the terms of the lease.

In the trial court judgment was rendered in favor of Guy against the bank for $960, and against the Seamans Oil Company and Empire Gas & Fuel Company on their plea in intervention. The case was appealed by writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals.

We quote the following from the certificate here submitted, including the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Bocanegra v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1980
    ...to bind her to an informed election. Some of the Texas decisions cannot be harmonized, and they need discussion. Seamans Oil Co. v. Guy, 115 Tex. 93, 276 S.W. 424 (1925), while reaching a correct result, intermingles the doctrines of election, estoppel, and satisfaction. J. H. Guy and wife,......
  • McKenzie v. Carte
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 1964
    ...between inconsistent rights. The applicable law in regard to the distinction just mentioned is well set out in Seamans Oil Co. v. Guy, 115 Tex. 93, 276 S.W. 424 (1925), and Seamans Oil Co. v. Guy, 114 Tex. 42, 262 S.W. 473 (1924). See also 21 Tex.Jur.2d, Election of Remedies, sec. 2, p. 198......
  • Metroflight, Inc. v. Shaffer
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 16, 1979
    ...estoppel to exist, of course, there must be detrimental reliance on the part of the party asserting it. See Seaman's Oil Co. v. Guy, 115 Tex. 93, 276 S.W. 424, 426 (1925). Ratification, in and of itself, is not the choice of a remedy although the choice of a remedy may be ratification. For ......
  • In re Gayle
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas
    • December 28, 1995
    ...an informed choice between two or more remedies which are so inconsistent as to constitute manifest injustice); Seamans Oil Co. v. Guy, 276 S.W. 424, 426 (Tex.1925); Thomas v. Thomas, 902 S.W.2d 621, 624 (Tex.App. — Austin 1995, rehearing denied). There is no election, that is, no inconsist......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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