Stine Oil & Gas Co. v. English
Decision Date | 26 February 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 8333.) |
Citation | 185 S.W. 1009 |
Parties | STINE OIL & GAS CO. v. ENGLISH.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Clay County; J. W. Akin, Judge.
Action by H. W. English against the Stine Oil & Gas Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals, and plaintiff cross-appeals. Reformed and affirmed.
Samuels & Brown, of Ft. Worth, and Wantland & Parrish, of Henrietta, for appellant. Arnold & Taylor, of Henrietta, and Huff, Martin & Bullington, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
The Stine Oil & Gas Company employed H. W. English to drill a well on a tract of land in Clay county, for the purpose of obtaining oil and petroleum therefrom. The contract of employment was in writing, in which the Oil Company was designated as the party of the first part and English as the party of the second part, and is as follows:
The well was drilled to a depth of 1,719 feet into a gas sand, which produced gas at the rate of 16,000,000 cubic feet per 24 hours. Eight-inch casing had been set at a depth of 1,694 feet, and 6-inch casing was set at a depth of 1,719 feet, where the gas was struck. The well could then have been finished and used for a gas well, and under a contract with the Lone Star Gas Company, which already owned the gas rights upon said land, could have been turned over to that company at a price equal to the cost of the work up to that time. But the officers of the Oil Company, preferring an oil well instead, decided to have the well drilled deeper in the hope of securing oil, and in obedience to instructions to that effect English continued drilling, and, having struck water below the gas sand, he shut it off by using a 5-inch casing, which was continued down to a depth of 1,783 feet, when he was directed by Mr. Fitch Stine, president of the Oil Company, to cease drilling. English was then directed by him to withdraw the 5-inch casing and return to the gas sand and finish the well as a gas well, which was afterwards done. The Oil Company paid English, for drilling the well to a depth of 1,783 feet, the contract price of $3 per foot, with the exception of a small balance of $138.05.
This suit was instituted by H. W. English against the Stine Oil & Gas Company to recover the aforesaid balance of $138.05 under the original contract, and also for the work he performed and certain expenses incurred in returning to the gas sand and finishing the well as a gas well after the company had decided to abandon its further efforts to procure oil. The demand for the work in returning to the gas sand and finishing the well as a gas producer was predicated upon an alleged parol contract on the part of the company, represented by Mr. Fitch Stine, its president, and Dr. Rumph, its vice president, to pay English for the alleged extra work at the rate of $50 per day, which was alleged to be the usual and customary price for such work with the drilling outfit used by plaintiff therefor. The claim for the expenses incurred in performing such alleged extra work, aggregating $155.85 and consisting of divers characters, such as telephone charges, hired help, etc., an itemized statement of which was attached to the petition as an exhibit, was based upon allegations that the same were necessary and that the defendant thereby impliedly became bound to pay the same. But, according to the plaintiff's contention, said extra work, for which he claimed compensation at the rate of $50 per day, did not include the drawing of the 5-inch casing, after the further drilling had been abandoned, which he admitted he was obligated to draw under and by virtue of the original written contract.
In its answer the defendant denied making the parol contract sued on, and specially pleaded as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quanah, Acme & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Eblen
...itself about finding for or against either party. Appellant cites no authorities, but Judge Dunklin said, in Stine Oil & Gas Co. v. English (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 1009, 1013: "Nor can we say that there was reversible error in the refusal of the defendant's request for an instruction tha......
-
American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Williams
...define "preponderance of the evidence." G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Blumberg (Tex. Civ. App.) 227 S. W. 734, 735; Stine Oil & Gas Co. v. English (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 1009. In view of the disposition made of the appeal, the court did not err in his rulings as to the testimony as set out ......
-
Jackson v. Amador
...of proof" as used in the charge. The court did not err in this particular, and the assignment is overruled. Stine Oil & Gas Co. v. English (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 1009; Karotkin Furniture Co. v. Decker (Tex. Com. App.) 50 S.W.(2d) The question presented in the second assignment arose in ......
-
Gulf Refining Co. v. Boren
...and recovered in one suit. J. B. Farthing Lumber Co. v. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 178 S. W. 725; Stine Oil Co. v. English (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 1009; Kempner v. Comer, 73 Tex. 196, 11 S. W. 194; 1st Tex. Jur. § 55, p. 672; 10 Tex. Jur., § 272, p. The opinion first cited de......