Utilities Production Corp. v. Riddle
| Decision Date | 29 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | 21838. |
| Parties | UTILITIES PRODUCTION CORPORATION v. RIDDLE et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The existence of a relationship of joint tenancy of real estate in itself does not authorize one of the joint tenants to act as agent for his cotenant in declaring or enforcing a forfeiture of an oil and gas mining lease on the real estate.
2. All of the joint tenants of real estate must concur in an election to declare a forfeiture of an oil and gas mining lease and in a notice of an intention to declare a forfeiture for failure to comply with the implied covenant thereof to develop the property for oil and gas.
3. Where there is no sufficient notice of a forfeiture of an oil and gas mining lease and a failure to comply with the implied covenant to develop the property for oil and gas, it is not necessary to determine whether or not a ground for forfeiture actually exists.
4. In a case of a breach of an implied covenant properly to develop an oil and gas mining lease, the owner of the land must demand that the implied covenant of the lease be complied with before a court of equity will grant a forfeiture of the oil and gas mining lease.
5. A court of equity will not cancel an oil and gas mining lease for a failure to comply with an implied covenant to develop the lease, unless notice has been served on the owner of the lease that a failure to commence drilling operations will be considered grounds for cancellation of the lease unless the circumstances are such as to excuse the failure to give such notice, as where an abandonment of the lease may be inferred from the fact that default therein has existed for a long period of years.
6. Record examined, and held, the judgment of the trial court is not supported by the evidence, and is contrary to the law.
Appeal from District Court, Pittsburg County; Harve L. Melton Judge.
Action by Coleman Riddle and others against the Utilities Production Corporation. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals.
Reversed and the cause remanded, with directions.
Poe Lundy & Morgan, of Tulsa, and Fuller, Porter & Fuller, of McAlester, for plaintiff in error.
Pitchford & Pitchford, of Okmulgee, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Pittsburg county in favor of the defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs in the trial court, against the plaintiff in error, who was the defendant in the trial court. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant.
The plaintiffs Coleman Riddle and Nancy Riddle brought an action against the defendant for the purpose of procuring the cancellation of a portion of a certain oil and gas mining lease held by the defendant. The material allegation of the petition was that the defendant had abandoned the lease as to a portion of the land. The issues were made up and the cause came on for trial. At that time the attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion on behalf of W. T. Noblin in which he stated that he had purchased an interest in the property in question, and in which he asked to be made a party plaintiff. It appears from the record that the attorneys for the plaintiffs learned of the interest of Mr. Noblin on the morning of the trial. The defendant objected to making Mr. Noblin a party plaintiff. That objection was overruled, and the court directed that he be made a party plaintiff. The defendant objected to proceeding with the trial, and asked for time in which to make an investigation and in which to plead to the changed conditions. That request was overruled, and the court directed the trial to proceed. When the evidence was all in, the plaintiffs asked permission to amend the petition to conform to the proof in the case "* * * so as to in addition to the allegations already made, that we have alleged, to allege that the defendants have forfeited the lease insofar as the South forty is concerned for failure to properly develop the same." The defendant's objections thereto were overruled, and the trial court permitted the amendment to be made. No amendment to the petition was made at any time, and no amended petition was filed.
It is herein contended that there was error in permitting Mr. Noblin to be made a party plaintiff after the cause was called for trial and in compelling the defendant to proceed with the trial over the objections of the defendant. Since the judgment of the trial court must be reversed on other grounds, we do not think it necessary to further consider those contentions.
The action, as it was commenced, was founded upon an abandonment of a portion of the leased premises in controversy. The record shows no evidence of an abandonment thereof. On the contrary, it shows that the defendant was the owner of a leasehold estate, that it was operating a gas well on a portion of the premises, and that it intended to develop the remainder of the leased premises as soon as a market could be obtained for the production.
It appears from the record that, at the time of the institution of the action, the plaintiffs were cotenants of the property in question; Mr. Noblin owning an undivided interest in the oil, gas, and minerals therein. Under the decision of this court in Hawkins et al. v. Klein et al., 124 Okl 161, 255 P. 570, and others, it was held that all of the joint owners of land must unite in an election to enforce a forfeiture on account of the breach of entire and indivisible covenants, and that no tenant in common has, by virtue of his relationship to his cotenants, any authority to act as agent for his cotenants in enforcing a forfeiture of a lease on jointly owned real estate. It is admitted that Mr. Noblin never gave any notice to the defendant of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial