W. States Oil & Land Co. v. Helms

• Decision Date: 04 February 1930
• Docket Number: Case Number: 17750
• Citation: 288 P. 964,143 Okla. 206,1930 OK 70
• Parties: WESTERN STATES OIL & LAND CO. et al. v. HELMS et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1930 OK 70

288 P. 964

143 Okla. 206

WESTERN STATES OIL & LAND CO. et al. v. HELMS et al.

Case Number: 17750

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 4, 1930

Syllabus

¶0 1. Attorney and Client--Venue of Action to Recover Attorney's Fee.

An action by an attorney to recover attorney's fees is transitory and may be maintained in any county where service may be had upon the defendants or one of them.

2. Same--Joinder of Suit Against Client and Suit Against Adverse Party Settling with Client.

An attorney may join a suit against his client to recover attorney's fees and a suit against the adverse party as provided in section 4102, C. O. S. 1921, in the same action.

3. Appeal and Error--Review--Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Verdict.

On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the question presented on appeal, is, admitting the truth of all the evidence of the plaintiff, together with such inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be drawn therefrom, eliminating all evidence of defendant in conflict with plaintiff's evidence, and all opposing inferences, whether there is any competent evidence tending to support the verdict against defendant.

4. Jury--Joint Action Against Client and Adverse Party to Recover Attorney's Fee Triable to Jury.

An action by an attorney to recover an attorney's fee from his client joined with an action to recover an attorney's fee from an adverse party under the provisions of section 4102, C. O. S. 1921, is a law action and triable to a jury.

5. Appeal and Error--Sufficiency of Evidence--Verdict Conforming to Admissions of Party.

Where a party to an action, in the opening statement and in cross-examination, asserts a fact, and the verdict of the jury is returned in conformity with that statement, the party cannot assert in this court that the verdict of the jury is not supported by competent evidence.

6. Oil and Gas--Construction of Lease--Rights of Lessee as to Production and Further Exploration After Initial Term of Lease.

Under an oil and gas mining lease for a specific term "and as long thereafter as oil or gas, or either of them, is produced from said land by the lessee," the lessee after having discovered oil or gas during the initial term of the lease may continue to produce oil or gas therefrom until the exhaustion of the oil or gas discovered during the initial term, or the lessee may, after the expiration of the initial term, temporarily abandon the oil or gas discovered during the initial term for the purpose of further exploration at a greater depth and with the intent to return and produce the oil or gas discovered during the initial term if other oil or gas is not discovered at a greater depth, but such a lessee may not continue exploration after the expiration of the initial term and exhaustion of the oil and gas discovered during the initial term.

7. Attorney and Client--Action to Recover Attorney's Fee Against Client and Adverse Party--"Compromise or Settlement" as Basis of Liability.

In a suit by an attorney against his client and an adverse party to recover an attorney's fee under the provisions of section 4102, C. O. S. 1921, the question to be determined is, Did the client and the adverse party, without notice to the attorney, perfect an arrangement that deprived the client of his rights against the adverse party in the litigation? The means or method used to carry out the arrangement is immaterial, and any means or method producing the result constitutes a settlement or compromise as contemplated by said section.

8. Same--Sufficiency of Evidence to Submit to Jury.

Where there is any competent evidence of an arrangement between the client and an adverse party by which the rights of the client to prevail in his litigation against the adverse party is defeated, the same constitutes prima facie evidence, and the court is warranted in submitting to the jury all the facts and circumstances shown in evidence that the jury may determine from the evidence whether or not there was a settlement or compromise of the cause of action of the client.

9. Same--Amount of Liability in Action to Recover Contingent Fee.

In a suit by an attorney to recover a contingent attorney's fee from his client and an adverse party under the provisions of section 4102, C. O. S. 1921, the amount of the recovery is the amount that the attorney would have been entitled to had his client prevailed in the action against the adverse party.

Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Geo. W. Clark, Judge.

Action by J. C. Helms and J. E. Falkenberg against the Western States Oil & Land Company and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Sam P. Ridings, Joe B. Allen, Reuben M. Roddle, J. B. Drennan, and Simons, McKnight, Simons & Smith, for plaintiffs in error.

Nowlin, Spielman & Thomas, for defendants in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 This action was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county by the defendants in error (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) on February 7, 1924, for the recovery of a judgment against the plaintiffs in error, the Western States Oil & Land Company (hereinafter referred to as the oil company) and Len S. Swaggert and Pauline Swaggert (hereinafter referred to as the landowners).

¶2 On the trial of the action judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs against the oil company and the landowners, and each of them, from which an appeal was taken by them to this court.

¶3 An examination of the record shows the following facts:

The landowners owned a tract of land in Grant county, Okla. On October 26, 1920, the oil company obtained an oil and gas mining lease on the land and entered into possession thereof under that lease. A well was drilled to the approximate depth of 3,000 feet and was completed in May, 1921, producing at the outset approximately 450 barrels of oil a day and decreasing in amount until January, 1922. The oil company and the landowners contend that at that time "* * *it produced approximately twelve and one-half barrels of oil," and plaintiffs contend that

"The oil company continued to produce oil from the well until some time in January, 1922, when its production ceased, and, according to the statement of the superintendent of the oil company, the sand was 'bone dry'."

¶4 There was no other development of the property at that time and no effort had been made to further develop the property. The lease was for a term of one year and contained the following provision, to wit:

"It is agreed that this lease shall remain in force for a term of one year from this date and as long thereafter as oil or gas, or either of them, is produced from said land by the lessee."

¶5 In January, 1922, the landowners employed the plaintiffs as attorneys, who advised them that the term of the lease had expired unless oil or gas was being produced from the land, and if the well was then dry and no oil or gas was being produced therefrom, the landowners had a legal right to declare the lease at an end. Thereupon plaintiffs prepared and on or about the 10th day of February, 1922, had a notice served upon the oil company by the sheriff of Grant county, notifying the oil company that it had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the lease, that it had not developed the premises in a reasonable manner, that it was not producing oil or gas from the premises and that the lease had terminated, and commanding and instructing the oil company to remain off the premises and forbidding it to trespass upon the premises in any manner. On the 30th day of January, 1922, the oil company went into the well, pulled the tubing and started rigging up to deepen it. The notice of the landowners to the oil company was ignored. The landowners then entered into a written contract with plaintiffs on a contingent basis and authorized them to institute suit for the protection of their rights. On April 25, 1923, suit was filed for the landowners against the oil company by plaintiffs in the district court of Grant county for the purpose of having the lease declared terminated. Indorsed on the petition was an attorney's lien claim with the signature of the plaintiffs, and thereafter plaintiffs had a written notice of their attorney's lien served upon the attorneys for the oil company, to which notice was attached a copy of their contract. On motion of the oil company the cause was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. At the time the suit was filed the oil company was drilling at a depth of approximately 3,350 feet, and it continued drilling to a depth of 4,000 feet, where a gas sand was encountered and the same was turned into a gas well on or about March 23, 1923. The oil company filed its answer in the form of a general denial and admitted the execution of the lease, and on the 28th day of April, 1923, it filed another answer, in which it alleged that the well was then producing gas in commercial quantities which was being marketed in accordance with the lease and

"This defendant avers that plaintiffs herein rescinded the protest referred to in paragraph 5 of the first cause of action of plaintiffs' bill and allowed and requested this defendant to continue the operation and production from said oil and gas well."

¶6 Upon the filing of the amended answer the plaintiffs, on May 4, 1923, wrote the landowners calling their attention to the filing of the amended answer, and that if the allegations thereof were true the same might constitute a complete defense to the suit, and asked the landowners to advise them by return mail the facts in connection therewith. On about the 9th or 10th day of May, the plaintiffs received a letter from the landowners in which they said: "We are writing Judge Cotteral to dismiss the case." On May 7, 1923, a letter was mailed by the landowners to Judge Cotteral at Guthrie asking him to dismiss the suit. The case was set for trial on May 12, 1923, and on that date the...