Texaco, Inc. v. Faris
| Decision Date | 08 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5794,5794 |
| Citation | 413 S.W.2d 147 |
| Parties | TEXACO, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. R. W. FARIS and Wife, Eugenia Faris, Appellees. . El Paso |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Johnston S. Rowe and W. N. Sands, Midland, for appellant.
Shafer, Gilliland, Davis, Bunton & McCollum, Lucius D. Bunton and Ray C. Stoker, Jr., Odessa, for appellees.
This suit was brought by appellees R. W. Faris and wife against appellant Texaco, Inc., for damages to Lot 18 of the Western Hills Subdivision to the City of Odessa, Texas. Appellees are the owners of the surface of such lot, and appellant is the owner of an oil and gas lease covering that lot and the surrounding acreage. Basis of appellees' claim is that Texaco made an excessive use of the surface of Lot 18 in the drilling and operating of an oil well. Jury verdict was for the surface owners in the amount of $1,000.00.
Basic questions are whether the case was submitted on the proper legal theory, and whether there is any evidence or sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings. Issue No. 1 is as follows:
'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Texaco, Inc ., acting by and through its duly authorized officers, agents, servants, and employees, made an unnecessary use of the surface estate of R. W. Faris on or about April 23, 1962, and thereafter, in its operation of producing the oil and gas lying in and under the land covered by Texaco Inc.'s oil and gas mining lease?'
The court's charge contained an explanatory instruction to the jury to take into consideration only what they found from the evidence to be unnecessary, and to exclude from consideration what was found to be necessary.
Appellant contends that the rights of the parties, and its consequent liability, are not correctly determined by the proposition of 'unnecessary use'; that such is not the proper legal test. It is appellant's position that the correct rule of law is that an oil and gas lessee has the right to use so much of the surface as is 'reasonably necessary' to comply with the terms of the oil and gas lease and effectuate the purposes thereof. It offered a definition and explanatory instruction of the law as to 'reasonably necessary' to be placed in the charge, and it requested issues inquiring whether the use it made of the surface was reasonably necessary. We are of the opinion that the court did not err in refusing the requested issues and instructions, and that the correct test of liability was the inquiry as to unnecessary use. The rights of the parties depend on the nature of the estate owned by each. Faris took a deed to the surface estate subject to the existing oil and gas lease of Texaco. That oil and gas lease granted Texaco an easement in the surface estate of Faris, and it sets out the extent or scope of the easement. It provides:
* * * ' (Emphasis supplied).
The conventional oil and gas lease confers on the lessee the right to use so much of the surface as is reasonably necessary to comply with its terms and effectuate its purpose. Warren Petroleum Corp. v . Monzingo, 157 Tex. 479, 304 S.W.2d 362, 65 A.L.R.2d 1352 (1957), and cases cited. Typical of such leases is that express uses of the surface are set out--i.e., lay pipe lines, provide storage, build roads, construct telephone and telegraph lines, etc.--with no express provision as to the extent or amount of such pipe line laying, road building, storage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whiteman v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC
...the lessee the use of the surface to the extent necessary to a full enjoyment of the grant.Id. at 1002 (quoting Texaco, Inc. v. Faris, 413 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Tex.Civ.App.1967)). In addressing EOG's contention that its use of a reserve pit is not unreasonable because the North Dakota Industria......
-
Winslow v. Duval County Ranch Co., Inc.
...Aiken, 162 Tex. 104, 344 S.W.2d 668 (1961); Brown v. Lundell, 162 Tex. 84, 344 S.W.2d 863 (1961); Texaco, Inc. v. Faris, 413 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.); W. Browder, 'The Dominant Oil and Gas Estate--Master or Servant of the Servient Estate,' 17 SW.L.J. 2......
-
Teel v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC
...the lessee the use of the surface to the extent necessary to a full enjoyment of the grant.Id. at 1002 (quoting Texaco, Inc. v. Faris, 413 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Tex.1967)). In addressing EOG's contention that its use of a reserve pit is not unreasonable because the North Dakota Industrial Commis......
-
Kartch v. EOG Res., Inc.
...enjoyment of the grant. Without such use, the mineral estate obtained under the lease would be worthless....' Texaco, Inc. v. Faris, 413 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Tex.Civ.App.1967).” The above cases recognize the well-settled rule that where the mineral estate is severed from the surface estate, the......
-
CHAPTER 3 RIGHTS OF ACCESS BETWEEN SURFACE OWNERS AND MINERAL LESSEES
...upon the land in order to explore for and extract the minerals granted or reserved. 176 S.W.2d at 305. See also Texaco, Inc. v. Faris, 413 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("the mere granting of the lease creates and vests in the lessee the dominant estate ........
-
CHAPTER 17 TITLE CURVE BALLS THROWN BY UNITS
...Bar of Texas (Oct. 1993). [58] Pfluger v. Clack, 897 S.W.2d 956, 959 (Tex. App.--Eastland 1995, writ denied). [59] Texaco, Inc. v. Faris, 413 S.W.2d 147, 149-50 (Tex. Civ. App.--El Paso 1967, writ ref'd n.r.d.); Grimes v. Goodman Drilling Co., 216 S.W. 202, 204 (Tex. Civ. App.--Fort Worth 1......
-
CHAPTER 9 SHOTGUNS, LOCKED GATES, AND INDIGNATION: LITIGATING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN SURFACE USE DISPUTES
...Oil & Gas Easements, supra note 3, § 9.06 n.46. [22] Christman v. Emineth, 212 N.W.2d 543, 550 ( N.D. 1973). [23] Texaco, Inc. v. Faris, 413 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Tex. Civ. App. 1967). With the advent of horizontal drilling, and particularly in light of advances in modern horizontal drilling tec......
-
CHAPTER 2 APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO EOR OPERATIONS
...and to remove the product thereof."); Kartch v. EOG Res., Inc., 845 F.Supp. 2d 995, 1002 (D.N.D. 2012) (quoting Texaco, Inc. v. Faris, 413 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Tex. Civ. App. -- El Paso 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.)) (internal quotation marks omitted) ("Whether the express uses are set out or not, t......