UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY GAMMEL' SEDITION A DIGEST AND BRIEF BOOK OF TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS BY LYNDSAY D. HAWKINS OF THE DAll'AS BAR AUTHOR, "APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION (TEXAS)." AUSTIN. TEXAS GAMMEL'S BOOK STORE 1922. Copyright 1922 By Lyndsay D. Hawkins. T To My Wife L. D. H. 805288 PREFACE. This book is a growth. Not until the notes had assumed the proportions of a book, and publication Avas urged by many laAvyers who had seen the manu- script, was its publication decided upon. However, it is submitted to the Texas Bar in the confident belief that it will be found valuable to those who may be confronted with the many and varied prob- lems growing out of litigation, contracts, leases, etc., in connection with the oil and gas business. The book is not intended to be a treatise on the subject, but is intended, to furnish accurate and pointed citations to recent and leading cases, for the convenience of the busy practitioner. All the cases cited under a given proposition have bearing thereon, though, in some instances may not directly support the propositions, and may, in rare instances, even contradict the proposition. This is due to the circumstances under which the work- developed, and to the desire to cite all available cases under each proposition. It is suggested that reference be had to the cases themselves wherever possible. Because of the fact that the law of oil and gas is in its formative stage, and a great number of decisions may be expected from our courts as the development of our mineral resources progres by the insertion of a sufficient number of blank pages for the purpose, provision has been made whereby each owner of the book readily may keep the cita- tions brought down to date. It is to be hoped that TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 5 those who use the book will realize the importance of thus keeping it abreast with the decisions. A feature of the book which, it is believed, will add much to its value, is the comprehensive index at its conclusion. With the hope that the service the book may render will vindicate its publication, it is respect- fully submitted: LYXDSAY D. HAWKINS. March 20, 1922. TKXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 1. As to time a lease will run if no time limit is stipulated. Owens vs. Corsicana Pet. Co., 169 S. W., 200; 222 S. W., 154. Nat'l Oil & Pipe Line Co. vs. Teel, 67 S. W., 545 (affirmed, 95 Texas, 586; 68 S. W., 979). Thornton, Par. 138. Todd vs. Mfgr's. Light & Heat Co., 110 S. E., 446. (rule against perpetuities). Eastern Oil Co. vs. Beatty, 177 Pac., 105-106. Pratt Consol. Coal Co. vs. Vintson, 85 So., 502. Smith vs. Guffey, 202 Fed., 108. Guffey vs. Smith, 237 U. S., 101. Consumers Gas Trust Co. vs. Window Glass Co., 1C N. E., 366. New American Oil & Mining Co. vs., Troyer, 76 N. E., 253; 77 N. E., 732. New American Oil & Mining Co. vs. Wolff, 76 N. E., 255. Ohio Valley Oil & Gas Co. vs. Irvin Dev. Co., 212 S. W., 110. Plumber vs. So. Oil Co., 214 S. W., 896. McKay vs. Tally, 220 S. W., 167. S. W. Oil Co., vs. McDaniel, 175 Pac., 920. Kachelmacher vs. Laird, 110 N. E., 933. Ohio Fuel Oil Co. vs. Greenleaf, 99 S. E., 274. Indiana Rolling Mill Co. vs. Gas Supply & Mining Co., 76 N. E., 640. Consumers Gas Trust Co. vs. Littler, 70 N. E., 363. La Fayette Gas Co. vs. Kelsey, 74 N. E., 7. .ndiana Nat. Gas Co. vs. Beales, 76 N. E., 520. Johnson vs. Armstrong, 94 S. E., 753. Warren Oil & Gas Co. vs. Gilliam, 207 S. W., 698. On the general question of notice to lessee, before termination, see above cases and Wapa Oil fe Dev. Co. vs. McBride, 201 Pac., 984. And see, also, Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 397; 15 S. W.. ]>. 7 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 401-402. Also, Satterfield vs. Galloway, 234 S. W., 448. Also, Towel vs. Fluharty, 203 Pac., 703. See Notes 33b, 94, 337, 417. 2. An oil lease should be recorded because it "concerns lands," and because it ''relates to real estate." R. S., Arts. 6823, 6827. "3. An assignment of rentals under an oil lease should not be recorded. Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank vs. Tullos, 211 S. W., 847. See Curlee vs. Anderson, 235 S. W., 622 (royalties and rentals). 4. A well is not "commenced" until the actual boring in the ground begins. Witherspoon vs. Staley, 156 S. W., 557. See Forney vs. Ward, 62 S. W., 108. Knight Bros. vs. Standard Oil Co., 84 So., 653. But see Terry vs. Texas Co., 228 S. W., 1019. See Notes 217, 220. 5. As to the effect of the failure of a joint ownet of land to sign a lease, see Griffin vs. Bell, 202 S. W., 1034. Herndon vs. Meadows, 103 S. E., 404, on whether contract is not incomplete where all negotiated, and sea, also, Watson vs. Cloud, 225 S. W., 807 Gulf Ref. Co. vs. Hayne, 86 So., 891. See Notes 22, 93. 6. As to whether a nominal consideration will support art oil lease, see 8 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Morris vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 228 S. W. 981. Nat'l Oil & Pipe Line Co. vs. Teel, 95 Texas 586; 68 S. W., 979. Pierce Fordyce Oil Assn. vs. Woodrum, 188 S. W.. 249, citing Kansas Supreme Court. Griffin vs. Bell, 202 S. W., 1036. Johnson vs. Russell, 220 S. W., 352. Nolan vs. Young, 220 S. W., 154. Bost vs. Biggers, 222 S. W., 1112. See Note 37. 7. Liability for rent under oil and gas lease. Kunkle vs. Gas Co., 33 L. R. A., 847. Note to Coal & Coke Co. vs. Sharp, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.), 968. See Notes 48, 69, 260. 8. Eights of parties to oil or gas lease forfeited for default in payment to be made in lieu of develop- ment. Frank Oil Co. vs. Bellview Gas & Oil Co., 43 L. R. A. (N. S.), 487. See Notes 43, 44, 45, 75, 128. 157, 234. 9. Enumeration of questions dealt with in L. R. A. notes: L. R. A., 1917 D, 1124; 43 L. R. A. (N. S.). 487. 10. Reservation of minerals in a deed. Moore vs. Henderson, 105 S. E., 903. L. R. A., 1918 A., 487. Hale vs. Grow, 106 S. E., 409. Tillotson vs. Martin, 193 Pac., 97.',. Lyles vs. Dodge, 228 S. W., 316. (Effects a sever- ance.) 9 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISION-. Frost Johnson Lmbr. Co. vs. Nabors Oil & Gas Co., 88 So., 723. See Notes 79, 116, 235, 246. 11. Duty of lessee to minimize damages from acts of sub-lessee. L. R. A., 1918 C, 907. 12. Specific performance of contract to deliver product from, or interest in, mines. L. R. A., 1918, E, 623, 627. Bassell vs. West Va. Cent. Gas Co., 103 S. E., 116; 12 A. L. R., 1398, and note. 13. Partition of oil and gas in place. Campbell vs. Lynch, L. R. A., 1919 B, 1070. But see Gas Co. vs. Ankrom, 5 A. .L. R., 1157. See Notes 18, 36, 106. _^ 14. As to whether the grantee of part of land covered by a, lease I is entitled to royalties in absence of special agreement to that effect, see Gillette vs. Mitchell, 214 S. W., 619. Campbell vs. Lynch, L. R. A., 1918 B, 1074. But see Pittsburg & W. Va., Gas Co. vs. Ankrom, 5 A. L. R., 1157. 15. As to whether a lessee may maintain an action in ejectment, see Guffey vs. Smith, 237 U. S., 101; 35 Sup. Ct. Rep., 526; 59 L. Ed., 856; 202 Fed., 106. Gould on Waters, Sec. 291, cited in Texas Co. vs. Daugherty, 107 Texas, 226; 176 S. YV., 717; L. R. A., 1917 F, 989. 10 TKXAS OIL AND (^\s DECISIONS. Kirk vs. Mattier, 41 S. W., p. 254. Huselton vs. Liggett, 202 Pac., 972 (possession). See Note 154. --., 16. The effect of a transfer by one royalty owner of part of his rights upon the remaining royalty interests. Hatfield vs. Falloway, 113 S. W., 853. >, ^ 17. As to payment of royalties accruing before a transfer. Burden vs. Thayer, 44 Mass., 76; 37 Am. Dec., 117. 18. As to the effect of partition of land upon which a lease is outstanding, see Campbell vs. Lynch, L. R. A., 1918 B, pp. 1070, I":., Gas Co. vs. Ankrom, 5 A. L. R., 1157. Gillette vs. Mitchell, 214 S. W., 619. See Notes 13, 36. 19. As to lease covering tracts of land owned by different persons in severally , see Gas Co. vs. Ankrom, 5 A. L. R., 11." 7. L. R. A., 1917 D., p. 1124. Lynch vs. Davis, 92 S. E., 427. 20. Commingling by lessee of oil from tracts of different owners, as affecting rights of each owner. Russell vs. Producers Oil Co., S3 So.. 773. 21. For rule as to homestead, gee Southern Oil Co. vs. Colquit, 69 S. W., 169. 11 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Griffin vs. Bell, 202 S. W., 1034. McEntire vs. Thomason, 210 S. W., 563. McKay vs. Lucas, 220 S. W., 172, last sentences. Texas Co. vs. Daugherty, 107 Texas, 226; 176 S. W., 717; L. R. A., 1917 F, 989. Maynard vs. Gilliam, 225 S. W., 818. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., p. 560. 22. M.ay a co-tenant develop oil ? Burnham vs. Hardy Oil Co., 147 S. W., 330, 336. Compton vs. Gas Co., 89 Pac., 1039; 10 L. R. A. (N. S.), 787. Beigler vs. Brenneman, 86 N. E., 597. Bessho vs. General Pet. Corp., 199 Pac., 22. See Morrison, pp. 46-48. Laughner vs. Wally, 112 Atl., 105. Gulf Ref. Co. vs. Carroll, 145 La. 299; 82 So. 277. York vs. Warren Oil & Gas Co., 229 S. W., 114. Virginia Coal & Iron Co. vs. Richmond, 104 S. E., 805. See Note 5. 23. "Abandonment" and ''forfeiture" distin- guished; defined. Fisher vs. Crescent Oil Co., 178 S. W., 905. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549, 563. Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., 867. Millar vs. Mauney, 234 S. W., p. 503. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co. vs. Whited, 196 Pac., 688. See Notes 45, 57, 157. 24. What is required to amount to abandonment. Emery vs. League, 72 S. W., 603. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co. vs. Whited, 196 Pac., 688. Grundy vs. Smith, 230 S. W., 1048. See Notes 45, 57, 120, 310. 12 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 25. Oil lease contracts are construed most favor- ably to the lessor. Leonard vs. Caruthers, 236 S. W., 189. See briefs of parties, L. R. A., 1917 B, 1185. Emery vs. League, 72 S. W., 603. Aycock vs. Reliance Oil Co., 210 S. W., 848. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691, 695. Steelsmith vs. Gartlan, 45 W. Va., 27; 29 S. E., 978; 44 L. R. A., 107; cited in Owens vs. Corsi- cana Pet. Co., 169 S. W., p. 194. Kolachny vs. Galbreath, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.), 451. Decker vs. Kirlicks, 216 S. W., 385. Prowant vs. Sealy, 187 Pac., 235. Higgins vs. Daley, 99 Fed., 606; 48 L. R. A., 320. McKee vs. Thornton, 192 Pac., 212. For discussion of reason and application of this rule, see dissenting opinion in Brown vs. Wilson, L. R. A., 1917 B, p. 1204. See also Ohio Oil Co. vs. Burch, 124 N. E., 787, holding construed against covenantor. Clutter vs. Wisconsin Texas Oil Co., 233 S. W., 322. Kies vs. Williams, 228 'S. W. 40, (Ky.) holding rule has special application to forfeiture clause. Jenkins vs. W T illiams, 229 S. W., 94. ' Paraffin Oil Co. vs. Cruce, 162 Pac., 716; 14 A. L. R., 952 and note. 26. "In order to preserve his rights under a con- tract of this kind (one not providing for rentals or fixing the time for drilling), the lessee must begin v, ithin a reasonable time the performance of his part of such contract and continue in the performance of the same with -reasonable diligence." Emery vs. League, 72 S. W., p. 607, and cases cited. 27. Reasonable diligence, it lias been held, will 13 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. be required where rentals are to be paid in case no well is drilled within a specified time. Owens vs. Corsicana Pet. Co., 169 S. W., p. 195; 222 S. W., 154. Bertram Developing Co. vs. Tucker, 228 S. W., 1027. See Notes 33 (b), 56, 94. 28. Temporary cessation will not subject the lease to forfeiture. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 396, 397; 15 S. W., p. 401, holding demand for resumption of operations necessary. Fisher vs. Crescent Oil Co., 178 S. W., p. 907. Rennie vs. Red Star Oil Co., 190 Pac., 391. Ohio Fuel Oil Co. vs. Greenleaf, 99 S. E., 274. See Burnett vs. Summerour, 228 S. W., 1013. Clutter vs. Wisconsin Texas Oil Co., 233 S. W., 322, 326. See Notes 76, 310. 29. Conveyance, by lessor, of land on which an unilateral lease exists, is within his rights if prior to beginning of performance by lessee and is an annullment of the lease. Roberts vs. McFadden, 74 S. W., p. 111. Canon vs. Scott, 230 S. W., 1042. 30. "Waiver of forfeiture may be made by : (a) Permitting the lessee to go ahead and develop premises: Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 391; 15 S. W., p. 399. Owens vs. Corsicana Pet. Co., 169 S. W., p. 195; 222 S. W., 154. 14 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Von Hatzfeld vs. Haubert, 224 S. W., 220. (b) Or by accepting delay money. G. C. & S. F. Ry. Co. vs. Settegast, 79 Texas, 256 r 15 S. W., 228. S. W. Oil Co. vs. McDaniel, 175 Pac., 920 and cases cited. Maud Oil & Gas Co. vs. Bodkin, 180 Pac., 959. Jens-Marie Oil Co. vs. Rixse, 178 Pac., 658. See Note 274. (c) Or by extending time for payment of rent due. Wahlstrom vs. Christy, 180 Pac., 528. (d) Or by asking for extension. Morton vs. Brinks, 197 Pac., 210. Waiver of forfeiture should be distinguished from waiver of breach, the latter requiring independent consideration. Niles vs. Meade, 224 S. W., 854,. 857. On this point see Peerless Carbon Black Co. vs. Gillespie, 105 S. E., 517. See Notes 43, 269, 274. 31. T\he discovery of oil on any portion of tho- leased premises by any holder under the lease, vests. a right to the entire lease for the whole term. Fisher vs. Crescent Oil Co., 178 S. W., 905-6. Lynch vs. Davis, 92 S. E., 427 and cases cited. Gypsy Oil Co. vs. Cover, 189 Pac., 540. Ohio Fuel Oil Co. vs. Greenleaf, 99 S. E., 274. Duke vs. Stewart, 230 S. W., 485. Smith vs. First Nat. Bank, 198 Pac., 103. See Notes 322, 335. 15 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 32. Performance brings a vested right to the lessee, which cannot be terminated at the will of the lessor, and which is not affected by the exhaustion of the discovery well. Fisher vs. Crescent Oil Co., 178 S. W., 907-8. Gypsy Oil Co. vs. Cover, 189 Pac., 540. See Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., p. 563, as to abandonment. See Note 310. 33. Implied obligations of a lease contract : (a) To continue operations after discovery: Fisher vs. Crescent Oil Co., 178 S. W., 907-8 and cases cited. Grass vs. Development Co., 84 S. E., p. 755. Grubb vs. McAfee, 212 S. W., 464. Daugherty vs. Ohio Oil Co., 105 N. E., 308. Key vs. Big Sandy O. & G. Dev. Co., 212 S. W., 300 Eastern Oil Co. vs. Beatty, 177 Pac., 104. Guffey Pet. Co. vs. Chaisson Townsite Co., 107 S. W., 609. Strange vs. Hicks, 188 Pac., 347. 27 Cyc., 731. Gypsy Oil Co. vs. Cover, 189 Pac., 540; 11 A. L. R., 129. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., p. 872 Todd vs. Mfrs. Light & Heat Co., 110 S. E., 446, (holding damages may be recovered). Paraffine Oil Co. vs. Cruce, 162 Pac., 716; 14 A. L. R., 952. Blair vs. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co., 230 S. W., 286. See (b) infra. (b) Duty to drill off-set wells: 16 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Wapa Oil & Dev. Co. vs. McBride, 201 Pac., 984 (re- quiring notice). L. R. A., 1917 A, 171; L. R. A., 1917 E, 975. Guffey Pet. Co. vs. Townsite Co., 107 S. W., p. 612. Note 34 L. R. A. (N. S.), 40. Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40 (Ky.) intimating that forfeiture clause is basis of duty. Grass vs. Development Co., 84 S. E., 750. See Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. Steel vs. Am. Oil Development Co., 92 S. E., 410 and cases cited. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Beatty, 177 Pac., 104, holding duty does not exist during period for which delay money is paid. See this case for remedy for breach of this implied covenant, and for dis- cussion of question of notice. Stanley vs. United Fuel Gas Co., 90 S. E., 344. Ohio Fuel Supply Co. vs. Shilling, 127 N. E., 873. (burden of proof.) Pelham Pet. Co. vs. North, 188 Pac., 1069. Carper vs. United Fuel Gas Co., 89 S. E., 12; L. R. A., 1917 A, 171. Blair vs. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co., 230 S. W., 286, (holding failure abandonment, etc.). See Notes 49, 50, 56, 336. (c) To develop: Mid-Texas Pet. Co. vs. Colcord, 235 S. W., p. 715. Wapa Oil & Dev. Co. vs. McBride, 201 Pac., 984 (stating nature of remedy). Edwards vs. Roberts, 209 S. W., 247. Discussed in Eastern Oil Co. vs. Beatty, 177 Pac., p. 105. Carper vs. United Fuel Gas Co., L. R. A., 1917 A, 171. S. W. Oil Co. vs. McDaniel, 175 Pac., p. 922. Grass vs. Development Co., 84 S. E., 754, 755. Note 34 L. R. A. (N. S.), 42, 44. 17 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISION'S. Guffey Pet. Co., vs. Oliver, 79 S. W., 884. Grubb vs. McAfee, 212 S. W., 464. Ammons vs. South Penn Oil Co., 35 S. E., 1104. Harness vs. Eastern Oil Co., 38 S. E., 662. Four Brotherhood Oil Co. vs. Keller, 235 S. W., 604, (breach of covenant as ground for forfeiture). Core vs. N. Y. Pet. Co., 43 S. E., 128. New Am. Oil & Mining Co. vs. Troyer, 76 N. E., 253. New Am. Oil & Mining Co. vs. Wolff, 76 N. E., 255. Consumers Gas Trust Co. vs. Littler, 70 N. E., 363. S. W. Oil Co. vs. Kersey, 195 Pac., 120, holding obligation yields to right to pay delay money. See Note 56. Tucker vs. Canfield, 276 Fed., 385. Paraffin Oil Co. vs. Cruce, 162 Pac., 716; 14 A. L. R., 952. Monarch Oil, Etc., Co. vs. Richardson, 99 S. W., 668. Hughes vs. Parsons, 209 S. W., 853. Smith vs. Root, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.), p. 181. Warren Oil & Gas Co. vs. Gilliam, 207 S. W., 698. Hitson vs. Gilman, 220 S. W., 140. Pierce vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 193. Millar vs. Mauney, 234 S. W., 498 (holding breach is ground of forfeiture). See also Skinner vs. Ajax Portland Cement Co., 197 Pac., 875. Is covenant, not condition. Hynson vs. Gulf Prod. Co., 232 S. W., 873, 874. Todd vs. Mfrs. Light & Heat Co., 110 S. E., 446. Clutter vs. Wisconsin Texas Oil Co., 233 S. W., 322. See Notes 26, 56, 57, 94, 194, 230, 336, 378. (d) To market: Davenport vs. Schoenfelt, 229 S. W., 1043. Howerton vs. Gas Co., 34 L. R. A. (N. S.), 34. But see Roach vs. Junction Oil & Gas Co., 179 Pac., 934. 18 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. (e) To drill after failure of one well: Thornton p. 237. Pierce vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 193. See Notes 57, 336. (f) See Note 11. (g) See Note 315. 34. The assignee under an instrument conveying an interest in land, who does not specially agree to assume its burdens and obligations, takes free from such burdens and obligations ; but the rule is other- wise where the instrument is only a lease contract, as there the burdens and obligations, such .as pay- ment of rents, run with the land. Pierce Fordyce Oil Ass'n vs. Woodrum, 188 S. W., 251, 252, 248, 254 and cases cited. Lowry vs. Atlantic Coal Co., 115 Atl., 847, applying rule to royalties and holding assignor released. Cauble vs. Hanson, 224 S. W., 922. Gordon vs. Wilcox, 200 Pac., 282. See Note 48. 35. "Oil in paying quantities" defined. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Bruce, 233 S. W., 535, (show- ing what expenses should be considered.) Aycock vs. Paraffine Oil Co., 210 S. W., 851. Lawther Oil Co. vs. Miller Sibley Oil Co., 44 S. E., 433; 97 Am. St. 1027. See especially Pelham Pet. Co. vs. North, 188 Pac., 1069 and cases cited. Ohio Fuel Oil Co. vs. Greenleaf, 99 S. E., 274. Keechi Oil & Gas Co. vs. Smith, 198 Pac., 588. See Notes 102, 359. 19 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 36. As to division of royalties where oil is found on only one of several tracts of land conveyed by will or deed, see Gillette vs. Mitchell, 214 S. W., 619. Wettengel vs. Gormley, 28 Atl. 934. Harvey Coal & Coke Co. vs. Dillon, 53 S. E., 928. Campbell vs. Lynch, 94 S. E., 739; L. R. A., 1918 B, 107. Lynch vs. Davis, 92 S. E., 427. But see also, McKean Nat. Gas Co. vs. Wolcott, 98 Atl., 955. Fairbanks vs. Warrum, 104 N. E., 983. N. W. O. Natural Gas Co. vs. Ullery, 67 N. E., 494. Osborne vs. Oil & Gas Co., 146 S. W., 122 (Ark). Rymer vs. South Penn. Oil Co., 46 S. W., 559. Pittsburgh & W. Va. Gas Co. vs. Ankrom, 97 S. E., 593; 5 A. L. R., 1157, and note. See Notes 13, 18, 222. 37. One dollar is sufficient consideration to sup- port an oil lease or a surrender clause therein. Corsicana Pet. Co. vs. Owens, 222 S. W. 154. McKay vs. Kilcrease, 220 S. W., 177. Lsath vs. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 223 S. W., 1022, and cases cited. Johnson vs. Russell, 220 S. W., 352. Lone Star Gas Co. vs. McCullough, 220 S. W., 1114. Shaffer vs. Marks, 241 Fed., p. 152. Nolan vs. Young, 220 S. W., 154. Hunter vs. Gulf Production Co., 220 S. W., 163. Emde vs. Johnson, 214 S. W., 575. Rich vs. Doneghey, 177 Pac., p. 91, and cases cited. Lindlay vs. Raydure, 239 Fed., 928. McKay vs. Tally, 220 S. W., 167. See cases cited in briefs of parties, L. R. A., 1917 B, p. 1188, and in opinion p. 1203. 20 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Gypsy Oil Co. vs. Rambo, 189 Pac., 193, holding con- sideration supports surrender clause. On this point see, also, Buie vs. Porter, 228 S. W., 999. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. Richardson vs. Hog Greek Oil Co., 229 S. W., 563. Epperson vs. Helbron, 225 S. W., 345. But see Great Western Oil Co. vs. Carpenter, 95 S. W., 57. See Notes 6, 185. 38. Development of the natural resources of the country should be allowed to proceed if the rights of litigants can be protected, and oil and gas leases will be construed accordingly. Emde vs. Johnson, 214 S. W., 575. See Prowant vs. Sealy, 187 Pac., 235. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Howard, 212 S. W., 735. Garfield Oil Co. vs. Champlin, 189 Pac., 514. McKee vs. Thornton, 192 Pac., 212, 214. Davenport vs. Schoenfelt, 229 S. W., 1043. Carder vs. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co., 201 Pac., 252. Paraffine Oil Co. vs. Cruce, 162 Pac., 716; 14 A. L. R., 952. Gypsy Oil Co. vs. Cover (Okla.), 189 Pac., 540; 11 A. L. R., 129, 136. Clutter vs. Wisconsin Texas Oil Co., 233 S. W., p. 324. 39. Kule for test of whether a temporary injunc- tion should be granted. Emde vs. Johnson, 214 S. W., p. 578. See Browning vs. Hinerman, 224 S. W., 236. So. Oil Corp. vs. Waggoner, 224 S. W., 230. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Howard, 212 S. W., 735. Collins vs. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 223 S. W., 696. Claborn vs. Camilla Red Ash Coal Co., 128 Va., 383; 105 S. E., 117; 15 A. L. R., 946. 21 TEXAS OIL AXD GAS DECISIONS. Ringling vs. Mahurin, 197 Pac., 829. Mid-Texas Pet. Co. vs. Colcord, 235 S. W., 710. (It is believed that the rule requiring the balancing of hardships should not be applied in behalf of a trespasser.) See Notes 105, 148, 150. 40. A public road may not be leased for oil pur poses by the commissioners' court. Boone vs. Clark, 214 S. W., 607. 41. An owner may take oil from underneath his own land, regardless of the fact that his doing so will drain oil from underneath the land of adjoining owners. P. O. & G. Co. vs. State, 231 S. W., 1088. Gillette vs. Mitchell, 214 S. W., p. 622. Brown vs. Spillman, 155 U. S., 665. Westmoreland Nat. Gas Co., vs. DeWitt, 18 Atl., 724. Barnard vs. Monongahela Gas Co., 65 Atl., 801. Jones vs. Forest Oil Co., 48 L. R. A., 748. Kelly vs. Ohio Oil Co., 39 L. R. A., 765; 49 N. E.. 399. But see R. S., Art. 4643-A., Acts Thirty-sixth Leg., p. 311, Ch. 162. See Notes 105, 209. 42. Iii .an action to cancel a deed the plea of improvements in good faith is good. Dean vs. Dean, 214 S. W., 509. 43. Time is of the essence of an oil lease, unlcs* the lease provides otherwise. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 773 (applying rule to "unless" lease). 22 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Brown vs. Wilson, L. R. A., 1917 B, p. 1191. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691, 697. Niles vs. Meade, 224 S. W., 854, 857, showing reason for rule and holding failure to comply by time stated is breach, not merely ground for forfeiture. On this point see, also, McLaughlin vs. Brock, 225 S. W., 575, and cases cited. Garfield Oil Co. vs. Champlin, 189 Pac., 514. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859, 863. McKinlay vs. Feagins, 198 Pac., 997. Olsen vs. Erwin, 229 S. W., 878. Von Harten & Clark vs. Nevels, 234 S. W., 676, (holding time essential in all contracts where prices fluctuate). Hutchinson vs. Atlas Oil Co., 87 So., 265. Gillespie vs. Bobo, 271 Fed. 641. Wilbanks vs. Selby, 227 S. W., 371. Appling vs. Morrison, 227 S. W., 708. Texas Co. vs. Curry, 229 S. W., 643. Langford vs. Bivins, 225 S. W., 867 (contract to lease). But see Burnett Coal Mining Co. vs. Schrepferman,. 133 N. E., 34. But see De Flores vs. Smith, 236 S. W., p. 507. See Notes 8, 30, 44, 45, 75, 128, 157, 234, 269. 44. There is no difference, for purposes oi forfeiture, between a lease which by its provisions becomes void unless delay money is paid, and one which provides for delay money without mentioning its voidability for default thereof. Brown vs. Wilson, L. R. A., 1917 B, p. 1191; but see dissenting opinion, page 1203, and Rich vs. Doneghey, 177 Pac., p. 91. See Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. But see Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40, limiting forfeiture to "unless" leases. 23 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Turner vs. Lick Creek Oil & Gas. Co., 234 S. W., 191 likewise limiting rule. Also, Healdton O. & G. Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 756. Also, Petitt vs. Double O Oil Co., 198 Pac., 616, holding abandonment automatically cancels. Likewise McKinlay vs. Feagins, 198 Pac. 997. Likewise Harvey vs. Benrno Oil Co., 272 Fed., 474. See Notes 8, 43, 45, 69, 75, 128, 157, 234. 45. Failure to pay rentals as an abandonment authorizing forfeiture. Brown vs. Wilson, L. R. A., 1917 B, p. 1184, (see especially dissenting opinion). See Notes 8, 23, 43, 44, 75, 128, 157, 234. 46. A check is not "cash in advance." Brown vs. Wilson, L. R. A., 1917 B, p. 1192, 1190, citing Kolachny vs. Galbreath, 26 Okla., 772; 110 Pac., 902; 38 L. R. A. (N. S.), 451. 47. A lease binds the lessee to do one of three things, viz : (a) Drill a well within the fixed time, or (b) Pay the surrender price, and quit, or (c) Pay the rentals. Rich vs. Doneghey, 177 Pac., p. 90. 48. May a lessee be held for rentals where there is no forfeiture or surrender? Turner vs. Lick Creek Oil & Gas Co., 234 S. W., 191. Rich vs. Doneghey, 177 Pac., p. 90, and cases cited. Clemenger vs. Flesher, 185 S. W., 304. Hancock vs. Diamond. Plate Glass Co., 70 N. E., 149. 24 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Pierce Fordyce Oil Ass'n vs. Woodrum, 188 S. W., p. 253. Hazelton vs. Chaffin, 197 Pac., 870. Farlow vs. Frankson, 203 Pac., 299, (under clause added to "unless" lease). See Notes 7, 34, 69, 260, 390. 49. Action either ex contractu or ex delicto will He for failure to drill off-set wells. Steele vs. Am. Oil Development Co., 92 S. E., 410. See Pelham Pet. Co. vs. North, 188 Pac., 1069, holding obligation is a covenant. 50. Character and amount of proof necessary to show that oil exists, so as to necessitate off-set wells : Blair vs. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co., 230 S. W., 286. Steele vs. Am. Oil Development Co., 92 S. E., 410. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Beatty, 177 Pac., p. 107. Grass vs. Big Creek Development Co., 84 S. E., 750. Ohio Fuel Supply Co. vs. Shilling, 127 N. E., 873. Hart vs. Standard Oil Co., 84 So., 169. Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354. Gypsy Oil Co. vs. Cover, 189 Pac., 540; 11 A. L. R., 129, and cases cited. Barquin vs. Hall Oil Co., 201 Pac., 352. Wapa Oil & Dev. Co. vs. McBride, 201 Pac., 984. Todd vs. Mfgr's. Light & Heat Co., 110 S. E., 446. 51. Delay in mails as ground for forfeiture for non-payment. Harvey vs. Benmo Oil Co., 272 Fed., 475. Kaysvs. Little, 175 Pac., 149; 103 Kan., 461; 1 A. L. R., 675; cited in Parris vs. Butler County Oil Co., 195 Pac., 879. 52. Adverse possession of mineral rights, as affecting limitation. 25 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 1 A. L. R., p. 562. Algonquin Coal Co. vs. Northern Coal & Iron Co., 29 Atl., 402. Adverse possession of surface where minerals have been severed. Green vs. West Texas Coal Mining & Dev. Co., 225 S. W., 548. v Wallace vs. Hoyt, 225 S. W., 425. >> Coal Co. vs. Sewell, 1 A. L. R., 556. Henderson vs. Chesley, 229 S. W., 573. v Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W. 549. Renfro vs. Hanon, 130 N. E., 740. Luse vs. Farmer, 221 S. W., 1031. V Franklin vs. Gwin, 85 So., 7. Scott vs. Laws, 215 S. W., 81; 13 A. L. R., 369, and note. v Murray vs. Allred, 39 L. R. A., 249; 43 S. W., 355. - Lyles vs. Dodge (Kaufman), 228 S. W., 316 (show- ing how possession of minerals may be taken). v Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, 383; 15 S. W., 396. V 53. The "lessor" may "transfer" the "rever- sion"; the "lessee" "assigns" the "lease." L. R. A., 1915 C, p. 195. 54. It is held that a surrender clause will entitle the lessor to terminate the lease upon tender or payment of the value of labor done and services performed by lessee. J. M. Guffey Pet. Co. vs. Oliver, 79 S. W., 884. But see Note 59. 55. The completion of a non-productive well vests no title in lessee. 26 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Steelsmith vs. Gartlan, 29 S. E., 978; 44 L. R. A., 107. But see Key vs. Big Sandy Oil & G. Dev. Co., 212 S. W., 300, on peculiar facts. And see Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. (Why should this proposition be true if drilling is such performance as will supply wanting original consideration?) 56. There is no duty to develop or drill off-set wells where the lease provides for the payment of rentals as compensation for delay in development. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Beatty, 177 Pac., 104. Carper vs. United Fuel Gas Co., 89 S. E., 12. Ohio Valley Oil & Gas Co. vs. Dev. Co., 212 S. W., 110 (where rents were accepted). Denniston vs. Kenova Oil Co., 220 S. W., 1078. Ocola Oil Co. vs. Hughes, 219 S. W., 799.. Skein vs. Junction Oil & Gas Co., 193 Pac., 988. S. W. Oil Co. vs. Kersey, 195 Pac., 120. Buie vs. Porter, 228 S. W., 999. See Bertram Developing Co. vs. Tucker, 228 S. W.. 1027. Link vs. State's Oil Corp., 229 S. W., 693. Monarch Oil & Gas Co. vs. Hunt, 235 S. W., 772. De Flores vs. Smith, 236 S. W., p. 507. See Blair vs. Creek Oil & Gas Co., 230 S. W., 286. See Notes 27, 33c, 57, 94, 194. 57. Failure to drill a second well as an abandon- ment. S. W. Oil Co. vs. McDaniel, 175 Pac., p. 921. Parafflne Oil Co. vs. Cruce, 162 Pac., 716; 14 A. L. R., 952. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. See Pratt TO. Hays, 226 S. W., 362. See Notes 33c, 56, 94, 194, 310. 27 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 58. "Said date" refers to next preceding ante- cedent. S. W. Oil Co. vs. McDaniel, 175 Pac., p. 921. 59. The fact that a lease gives the lessee the option of either drilling or paying rentals, does not entitle the lessor to terminate the lease. S. W. Oil Co. vs. McDaniel, 175 Pac., p. 922. See Note 54. 60. Right of owner, after execution of lease, in gas well existing at time of lease. Kemp vs. Barr Gas Co., 175 Pac., 988. 61. Measure of damages for failure to comply with agreement to make proper test. Grass vs. Development Co., 84 S. E., p. 754. 62. "Unless" and "or" leases distinguished. Brown vs. Wilson, L. R. A., 1917 B, p. 1191. Shaffer vs. Marks, 241 Fed., p. 158. Garfield Oil Co. vs. Champlin, 189 Pac., 514. Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40 (as to forfeiture for non payment of rentals). See Notes 7, 48, 260. 63. Effect of accident or mistake in making pay- ment on right to declare forfeiture. Shaffer vs. Marks, 241 Fed., 139. Hunter vs. Gulf Production Co., 220 S. W., 163. Gillespie vs. Bobo, 271 Fed., 641 (mailing check to incorrect address). 2S TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. See Notes 75, 283. 64. Equity does not abhor the forfeiture of an oil and gas lease. Note 34 L. R. A. (N. S.), 34. Note 11 L. R. A. (N. S.), 418. Cockrum vs. Christy, 223 S. W., 308. Jenkins vs. Williams, 229 S. W., 94. Clutter vs. Wisconsin Texas Oil Co., 233 S. W., 322. Bell vs. Kilburn, 234 S. W., 730. See Epperson vs. Helbron, 225 S. W., 345. Gillespie vs. Bobo, 271 Fed., 641, holding "equity does not undertake to dispense with compliance with what is made a condition precedent to the acquisition of a right." Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40 (showing rule where large investments have been made by lessee). But see Turner vs. Robertson, 224 S| W., 252. See Notes 71, 212, 269. 65. As to when the remedy is damages and when it is a forfeiture, see C. T. & M. C. Ry. Co. vs. Titterington, 84 Texas, 218; 19 S. W., 472. See Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. Howerton vs. Gas Co., 34 L. R. A. (N. S.), p. 45. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Beatty, 177 Pac., 104. Clemenger vs. Flesher, 185 S. W., 304, as to when the remedy is either, but not both. Daughetee vs. Ohio Oil Co., 105 N. E., 308, 310. Teague vs. Teague, 54 S. W., 632. Cox vs. Combs, 111 S. W., 1061. Barquin vs. Hall Oil Co., 201 Pac., 352 ^election of remedies) . See Notes 73, 74, 83. 29 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 66. Delay money is sometimes called "well-rent." La Fayette Gas Co. vs. Kelsey, 74 N. E., p. 9. Hancock vs. Diamond Plate Glass Co., 70 X. E., p. 152. and sometimes "acreage rental." Consumers Gas Trust Co. vs. Littler, 70 N. E., p. 365. and sometimes "rentals." Knight Bros. vs. Standard Oil Co., 84 So., p. 655. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., p. 562. 67. Payment by check, when authorized bank accepts and deposits as money, is sufficient. La Fayette Gas Co. vs. Kelsey, 74 N. E., p. 9. See Notes 114, 141. 68. It seems that in the absence of a surrender clause a lease, providing that it shall become null and void for default in payment, is nevertheless enforceable against the lessee. Hancock vs. Diamond Plate Glass Co., 70 X. E., 149, 152, and cases cited. See Xotes 7, 48, 69, 260. 69. Default of lessee will not excuse his non- performance, even where contract provides it shall be null and void in event of such default. Bates vs. Georgia Fertilizer Co., 229 S. W., 153. Hancock vs. Diamond Plate Glass Co., 70 X. E., 149, 152, and cases cited. Great Western Oil Co. vs. Carpenter, 95 S. W., 57. 30 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. But see Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 775, and McKinlay vs. Feagins, 198 Pac., 997, both holding "unless" clause is option in lessee. Likewise Harvey vs. Bennio Oil Co., 272 Fed., 475, and cases cited. See C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. vs. Potter County,. 235 S. W., p. 304. See Notes 7, 44, 48, 260, 390. 70. The rule that a grantee in a deed conveying a certain number of indefinite acres out of a larger tract authorizes the grantee to elect what acres he will take, probably would not apply in case of an oil lease, as the reason for the rule in the case of a deed is that the deed is construed most strongly against the grantor (Wofford vs. McKinna, 23 Texas, 45), whereas an oil lease is construed most strongly against the lessee. See Notes 25, 258. 71. An ambiguous provision of an oil lease will not support a forfeiture. "Where a contract is so vague in its terms that a court cannot determine its meaning, it would be unjust to enforce a for- feiture under it against one whose only fault has been to possibly mistake its meaning." Decker vs. Kirlicks, 216 S. W., 385. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 392; 15 S. W., p. 399. See Strange vs. Hicks, 188 Pac., 347, holding ex- trinsic evidence will be heard. Green vs. West Texas Coal Mining & Dev. Co.. 225. S. W., 548. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Harris, 230 S. W., 237. 31 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Texas Co. vs. Curry, 229 S. W., 643. See Note 103. 72. Possession is not constructive notice when it. is not inconsistent with rights attempted to be estab- lished. Nat'l Oil & Pipe Line Co. vs. Teel, 95 Texas 586; 68 S. W., 979. See Note 216. 73. Covenants authorize a suit for damages; con- ditions authorize forfeiture. Ry. vs. Titterington, 84 Texas, p. 222; 19 S. W., 472. See especially Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. See Howerton vs. Gas Co., 34 L. R. A. (N. S.), p. 45. Weiss vs. Claborn, 219 S. W., 884. See Pierce vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 193. See, especially, Harris vs. Rather, 134 S. W., 754 and cases cited. Also, Isom vs. Rex Crude Oil Co., 82 Pac., p. 318. Mercer-Lincoln Pine Knob Oil Co. vs. Pruitt, 229 S. W., 374. See 7 A. L. R., 1429. See Notes 65, 83. For discussion of equitable relief against forfeiture for breach of condition subsequent, see Young vs. Jones, 222 S. W., p. 694. 74. Election of remedies, as constituting estoppel. Barquin vs. Hall Oil Co., 201 Pac., 352. Clemenger vs. Flesher, 185 S. W., p. 305. Walker vs. Lane, 233 S. W., 634. See Note 65. 32 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 75. As to when a lessee tries in good faith to make rental payment and fails on account of accident or mistake, see Shaffer vs. Marks, 241 Fed., p. 158. See Notes 44, 45, 63, 128, 157, 234. 76. Discovery of gas before end of term, even though it is cased off and well is drilled deeper after the term ends with intention to return if more profitable production is not obtained, vests the title under a lease which does not require the marketing of the gas. * Roach vs. Junction Oil & Gas Co., 179 Pac. 934. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Coulehan, 64 S. E., 836. Parks vs. Sinai Oil & Gas Co., 201 Pac., 517. See Note 28. 77. Measure of damages for drilling and selling oil off of land belonging to another. Bender vs. Brooks, 103 Tex., 329; 127 S. W., 168. See, for requisite pleading by defendant, Right of Way Oil Co. vs. Gladys City Oil Co., 157 S. W., 737. Oneal vs. Sun Co., 123 S. W., 172. Burnham vs. Hardy Oil Co., 147 S. W., 331, Aff. 195 S. W., 1141 (co-tenants; non-producing well). Campbell vs. Smith, 101 N. E., 89. Woodenware vs. U. S., 106 U. S., 432; 27 L. Ed., 230. New Domain Oil & Gas Co. vs. McKinney, 221 S. W., 245. Santa Fe Ry. Co. vs. Smith, 171 S. W., 282. Witliff vs. Spreen, 112 S. W., 98. Boyle vs. Norris, 134 S. W., 767 (writ denied). See especially Pittsburg & W. Va. Gas Co. vs. Pentress Gas Co., 100 S. E., 296; 7 A. L. R., 901, and note. 33 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. McNeely vs. So. Penn. Oil Co., 58 W. Va. 438; 52 S. E. ( 480. Kelvin Lumber & Supply Co. vs. Copper State Mining Co., 232 S. W., 858. Petrelli vs. West Va. Pittsburgh Coal Co., 104 S. E., 103. Barnes vs. Winona Oil Co., 200 Pac., 985, applying rule to case where lease is canceled. Zelma Oil Co. vs. Nemo Oil Co., 203 Pac., 203. Mason vs. United States, 273 Fed., 135. Big Sespe Oil Co. vs. Cochran, 276 Fed., 216, (allowing willful trespasser to deduct taxes paid). See Note 415. 78. "Ejusdem generis," as applied to a grant of minerals. Right of Way Oil Co. vs. Gladys City Oil Co., (Sup.) 157 S. W., 737. Luse vs. Boatman, 217 S. W., 1096. Wolf vs. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co., 186 Pac., 484. Green vs. West Texas Coal Mining fc Dev. Co., 225 S. W., 548. Donnell vs. Otts, 230 S. W., 864, 866. See Note 116. 79. Description necessary in a reservation. Richter vs. Granite Mfg. Co., 107 Texas, 58; 174 S. W., 284. See Notes 10, 116, 235, 246. 80. "Oil is a mineral, and as a mineral is part of the realty." Isom vs. Rex Crude Oil Co., 82 Pac., 317. Swayne vs. Lone Acre Oil Co., 98 Texas, 597; 86 S. W., 740; 69 L. R. A., 986. Jackson vs. Scoggins, 220 S. W., 302. 34 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Luse vs. Boatman, 217 S. W., 1096. Hudson vs. McGuire, 223 S. W., 1101, applying rule to gas. Crabb vs. Bell, 220 S. W., 623. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Howard, 212 S. W., 735. Kennedy vs. Ohio Fuel Oil Co., 101 S. E., 159. Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., 867. Hynson vs. Gulf Prod. Co., 232 S. W., 873. Dingess vs. Huntington Dev. & Gas Co., 271 Fed., 864 (in reservation). Carothers vs. Mills, 233 S. W., 155, 157. Op. Atty. Gen., No. 2183, 2-21-20. See note 174. 81. The severance and removal of oil, except in proper cases, is waste. Isom vs. Rex Crude Oil Co., 82 Pac., 317. Carper vs. United Fuel Gas Co., 89 3. E., 12; L. R. A., 1917 A, 171. See Note 97. 82. A lease without mention of minerals or refer- ence thereto "is a lease merely of the superficies of the soil." Isom vs. Rex Crude Oil Co., 82 Pac., 317. 83. At common law rescission or forfeiture was not allowed unless the right of re-entry wns preserved in the lease. Isom vs. Rex Crude Oil Co., 82 Pac., 317. Mercer-Lincoln Pine Knob Oil Co. vs. Pruitt, 229 S. W., 374. See Perry vs. Smith, 231 S. \V., 340. See Notes 65, 73, 213. 35 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. S-i. The consideration for a lease goes to the whole lease. Corsicana Pet. Co. vs. Owens, 222 S. W., 154. McCray vs. Miller, 184 Pac., 781. Maud Oil & Gas Co. vs. Bodkin, 180 Pac., 959. Gypsy Oil Co. vs. Rambo, 189 Pac., 193. Lawrence vs. Mahony, 225 13. W., 340. 85. "In proper cases it is unquestionably true that restoration or offer to restore is essential to a rescission." Isom vs. Rex Crude Oil Co., 82 Pac., p. 319. See especially Davis vs. Burkholder, 218 S. W., 1101. Varnes vs. Dean, 228 S. W., 1017. Canon vs. Scott, 230 S. W., 1042, 1047. See Note 131. 86. As to whether a lease term is divisible as affecting necessity to repay rentals in an action to cancel, see Isom vs. Rex Crude Oil Co., 82 Pac., p. 319. 87. As to alteration of a material term of an oil lease, when duplicates are retained by both parties, see Magnolia Petroleum Co. vs. Saylor, 180 Pac., p. 864. . 88. The fraudulent alteration of an original oil lease by lessee does not affect his rights thereunder where the lessor has- also retained an original (duplicate) of the lease. Magnolia Petroleum Co. vs. Saylor, 180 Pac., p. 864. 36 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Nor the rights of lessor : Fleming vs. Head, 228 S. W., 302. See Note 210. 89. One who signs a contract in ignorance is nevertheless bound by its terms. Magnolia Pet. Co. vs. Saylor, 180 Pac., p. 861, and authorities cited. See Smith vs. Fleming, 231 S. W., 136. See Note 121. 90. Estoppel by acceptance of rentals. Great Western Pet. Corp. vs. Samson, 234 S. W., 727. Olsen vs. Erwin, 229 S. W., 878. Smith vs. Fleming, 231 S. W., 136. Magnolia Pet. Co. vs. Saylor, 180 Pac., p. 865. Hitson vs. Oilman, 220 S. W., 140. S. W. Oil Co. vs. McDaniel, 175 Pac., p. 921. Corsicana Pet. Co. vs. Owens, (Sup.) 222 S. W., 154. Ohio Valley Oil & Gas Co. vs. Irvine Dev. Co., 234 S. W., 437. Bertram Developing Co. vs. Tucker, 228 S. W., 1027. De Flores vs. Smith, 236 S. W., 505. See Notes 56, 95, 104, 213, 341. 91. Where no time is stipulated for the payment of delay money it is payable in advance. Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40 (Kiy.). Maud Oil & Gas Co. vs. Bodkin, 180 Pac., 959. But see Bailey vs. Williams, 223 S. W., 311. Collins vs. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 223 S. W., 696. And see Keen vs. Logan, 84 So. 501 (holding payable on demand). McNutt vs. Whitney, 232 S. W., 386. 37 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Epperson vs. Helbron, 225 S. W., 345; 15 A. L. R. ( 597, and note. But see Turner vs. Lick Creek Oil & Gas Co., 234 S. W., 191. See Lyon vs. Union Gas & Oil Co., 274 Fed., 957. Burnett Coal Mining Co. vs. Schrepferman, 133 N. E., 34. White vs. Dennis, 233 S. W., 373. See Note 128. 92. Owner of surface rights only can not com- plain of drilling. Grimes vs. Goodman Drilling Co., 216 S. W., 202. Davison vs. Reynolds, 103 S. E., 248. 93. A life-tenant who takes by purchase may drill for oil ; one who takes by descent may not. Swayne vs. Lone Acre Oil Co., 98 Texas, 597; 86 S. W., 740; 69 L. R. A., 986. See Williamson vs. Jones, 43 W. Va., 562; 38 L. R. A., 694; 27 S. E., 411. Marshall vs. Mllon, 179 Pa., 371; 36 Atl., 201; 35 L. R. A., 816; 57 Am. St., 601, cited in Strickler vs. Stanford, 197 Pac., 866. See Notes 5, 22. 94. A lessee must develop, even under an "or" lease, unless delay can be equitably excused. Hitson vs. Gilman, 220 S. W., 140. Waters vs. Hatfield, 190 Pac., 599, which see. See Ohio Valley O. & G. Co. vs. Dev. Co., 212 S. W., 110. Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354, 358. McNutt vs. Whitney, 232 S. W., 386, and Bertram Developing Co. vs. Tucker, 228 S. W., 1027, both holding rentals must be refused, and demand for development made. See Note 1. 38 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Keystone Gas Co. vs. Salisbury, 234 S. W., 290. But see Link vs. State's Oil Corp., 229 S. W., 693. Hynson vs. Gulf Prod. Co., 232 S. W., 873. Clutter vs. Wisconsin Texas Oil Co., 233 S. W., 322 (under express obligation to develop). See Satterfield vs. Galloway, 234 S. W., 448 (necessity for notice). Davenport vs. Schoenfelt, 229 S. W., 1043. Owens vs. Curd, 232 S. W., p. 640. See McNutt vs. Whitney, 232 S. W., 386, for time tender postpones right to development. Satterfield vs. Galloway, 234 S. W., 448, discussing notice and citing McNutt vs. Whitney. Millar vs. Mauney, 234 S. W., 498, discussing alter- native remedies. But not in wildcat territory. Lone Star Gas Co. vs. McCullough, 220 S. W., 1114, and see Bost vs. Biggers Bros., 222 S. W., 1112. Nor where original consideration adequate and lease does not show such purpose. Buie vs. Porter, 228 S. W., 999. See Notes 27, 33c, 56, 57, 143, 194. 95. A lease with no consideration being paid originally can not be enforced, though delay money- is paid and accepted. Hitson vs. Gilman, 220 S. W., 140. Promise as consideration : McCaskey vs. Schrock, 225 S. W., 418. See Notes 90, 104, 143. 96. Where a lease authorizes assigning any part 39 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. by lessee, then payment of rental on any part will keep lease operative as to that part, even though default is made as to one part, in ease of assignment. Hitson vs. Oilman, 220 S. W., 140. Broyles vs. Oilman, 222 S. W., 685. See Note 228. 97. Forfeiture of lease for commission of waste by tenant. 3 A. L. R., 672. See Carper vs. United Fuel Co., 89 S. E., 12; L. R A., 1917 A, 171. See Note 81. 98. "Where land is not homestead and wife has no separate interest therein, defect of her acknowl- edgement is immaterial. Johnson vs. Russell, 220 S. W., 352. 99. Person who has sold his interest in minerals can not declare a forfeiture. Baird vs. Atlas Oil Co., 84 So., 366. 100. A statute authorizing a guardian to lease land for oil purposes beyond minority is unconsti- tutional. Lawrence E. Tierney Coal Co. vs. Kash, (Ky.) 4 A. L. R., 1540, and note; 203 S. W., 731. But see Record! vs. Gaboury (Tenn.), 89 S. W., 98. Beaucamp vs. Bertig (Ark.), 23 L. R. A. (N. S.), 569; 119 S. W.. 75. Cabin Valley Mining Co. vs. Hall, L. R. A., 191G F, 493. 40 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. See Ross vs. Gill, 4 Call, 250 (Va.). Rogers vs. Harris 171 S. W., 809. Tierney Coal Co. vs. Smith's Guardian, 203 S. \V.. 731. Winona Oil Co. vs. Barnes, 200 Pac., 981. See Note 107. 101. Exclude the first and include the last day in determining; term of lease. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Coulehan, 64 S. E., 836. White vs. Dennis, 220 S. W., 161. Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40 (Ky.). 102. Lessee is the one who determines whether oil or gas has been discovered in paying quantities, so long as he acts in good faith. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Bruce, 233 S. W., 535. Manhattan Oil Co. vs. Carrell, 74 N. E., 1804. Osburn vs. Finkelstein, 126 N. E., 11. Colgan vs. Forrest Oil Co., 45 Atl., 119. Thornton, p. 235. Bay State Pet. Co. vs. Penn Lubricating Co., 87 S. W., 1102. Barbour Steadman & Co. vs. Tompkins, 93 S. E., 1038. In'Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 392; 15 S. W., p. 399, it is held that what is economy is to be determined by the lessee while acting in good faith. See Notes 35, 336. 103. Without express provision therefor, a lease may not be forfeited. Collins vs. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 223 S. W., 696, holding rule applicable to ordinary lease. 41 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Johnson vs. Gurley, 52 Texas, 222. Harris vs. Rather, 134 S. W., 755. Grubb vs. McAfee, 212 S. W., 464. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. Wade vs. Madison, 206 S. W., 119. Decker vs. Kirlicks, 216 S. W., 385. Pierce vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 193. Alford vs. Dennis, (Kan.) 170 Pac., 1005. Clutter vs. Wisconsin Texas Oil Co., 233 S. W., 322 (under express obligation to develop). Paraffine Oil Co. vs. Cruce, 162 Pac., 716; 14 A. L. R., 952 (holding issue to be judged by intention). Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354. Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40, 41 (Ky.). Buie vs. Porter, 228 S. W., 999. Hall vs. Roberts, 228 S. W., 1008. Sugg vs. Williams, 229 S. W., 72. Peerless Carbon Black Co. vs. Gillespie, 105 S. E., 517. See Notes 43, 71, 157.- 104. As bearing on the right of lessors to ratify or waive forfeiture of original lease (by acceptance of overdue rentals, or otherwise) to the detriment of third parties, see Ohio Valley O. & G. Co. vs. Irvin Dev. Co., 212 S. W., 110. Von Hatzfeld vs. Haubert, 224 S. W., 220. See Notes 90, 95. 105. Injunctions against mining operations in favor of adjacent land owner. Acts, 36 Leg., p. 311, Ch. 162. See Note 41. 106. Right to partition mineral rights. 42 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISION-. Acts 35th Leg., p. 295, Ch. 105. Vernon's Sup. (1918), Art. 6096. 107. Right of guardians to lease lands of ward for mineral purposes. Acts 36 Leg., p. 185, Ch. 119, R. S. Art. 4152a et seq. See Note 100. 108. Right of executors and administrators to lease or sell oil lands. Acts 36 Leg., p. 251, Ch. 137. 109. Duty of oil producer to report to Comp- troller. Acts 36 Leg., p. 128, Ch. 77. To Railroad Commission. Acts 36 Leg., 2. S. S., App. 7-25-19. 110. Conservation law, authorizing Railroad Com- mission to make orders, etc. Acts 36 Leg., p. 285, Ch. 155. 111. Pipe lines regulated, made common carriers, etc. Acts 35 Leg., p. 48, Ch. 30. Acts 36 Leg., p. 272, Ch. 146, Art. 1306. 112. Pipe line may require indemnity bond when transporting oil in litigation. Rule 4, P. L. Rules & Regulations. 7-26-19. 43 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 113. No oil well to be commenced nearer than 300 feet to another well, or 150 feet from property line. Rule 37, R. R. Com. See Mapel vs. John, 32 L. R. A., 800. Kelly vs. Ohio Oil Co., 39 L. R. A., 765; 49 N. E., 399. 114. A bank is agent of the lessor, and when the lessee deposits the rent in the bank with instructions that it be placed to lessor's credit or tenders it, the lease has been complied with, regardless of whether the bank does deposit it or not, or accepts it or not. Hunter vs. Gulf Production Co., 220 S. W., 163. McKay vs. Kilcrease, 220 S. W., 177. White vs. Dennis, 220 S. W., 161. Tatum vs. Fulton, 218 S. W., 1088. Great Western Pet. Corp. vs. Samson, 234 S. W., 727. McKay vs. Tally, 220 S. W., 167. Texas Co., vs. Wimberly, 213 S. W., 286. Cockrum vs. Christy, 223 S. W., 308. Bailey vs. Williams, 223 S. W., 311, holding only however "in accordance with the terms of the lease" and bank has no authority to accept a rental on a forfeited lease. McNutt vs. Whitney, 232 S. W., 386. See, however, Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 773. See Notes 67, 141. 115. "Mining" is broad enough to include boring for oil. Luse vs. Boatman, 217 S. W., 1096. 116. Effect of reservation in deed of mineral discussed, as affected by 44 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. (a) Knowledge of parties of mineral existing, (b) Intent to include mineral of certain kind, (c) Ejusdem generis (see Note 78.), (d) Decided cases at date of deed. Luse vs. Boatman, 217 S. W., 1096, cited in Luse vs. Farmer, 221 S. W., 1031. Carothers vs. Mills, 233 S. W., 155. Dingess vs. Huntington Dev. & Gas Co., 271 Fed., 864. See Notes 10, 79, 235, 246. 117. "Surface" defined. Luse vs. Boatman, 217 S. W., 1096, cited in Luse vs. Farmer, 221 S. W., 1031. 118. What must appear in suit to rescind for in- adequacy of consideration. Hunter vs. Gulf Production Co., 220 S. W., 163. See Note 142. 119. Is a lessee an "owner of land"? Texas Bank & Trust Co. vs. Smith, 108 Texas, 265, 2 A. L. R., 771. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, 383; 15 S. W., 396. See Note 252. 120. Facts amounting to abandonment. Grubb vs. McAfee, 212 S. W., 464. Strange vs. Hicks, 188 Pac., 347. See Pierce vs. T. P. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 193. Hurt vs. Garvin, 227 S. W., 811 (Ky.). Pratt vs. Hayes, 226 S. W., 362. Scott vs. Laws, 215 S. W., 81. Tucker vs. Canfield, 276 Fed., 385. Luman vs. Davis, 196 Pac., 1078. 45 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., 867. Monarch O. & G. Co. vs. Hunt, 235 S. W., 772. See Notes 24, 310. 121. Mistake that is unilaterial only, as bearing on right to rescind. Price vs. Biggs, 217 S. W., 236. See Note 89. 122. Construction of two repugnant clauses. Price vs. Biggs, 217 S. W., 236. 123. Distinction between limitation as to use and limitation as to title in deed. The words "for a cemetery" in deed merely suspend, not withhold, power of grantee to sell. Barker vs. Hazel-Fain Oil Co., 219 S. W., 874. T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Co. vs. Lingenfelter (Pa.), 105 Atl., 888; 5 A. L. R., 1495, and note. See Note 200. 124. Conveyance for purpose of cemetery fol- lowed by user, amounts to dedication. Barker vs. Hazel-Fain Oil Co., 219 S. W., 874. See T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Co. vs. Lingenfelter (Pa.), 105 Atl., 888; 5 A. L. R., 1495, and note. 125. Eight of relatives of persons buried in a graveyard to prevent spoilation by injunction. Barker vs. Hazel-Fain Oil Co., 219 S. W., 874. 126. A power to "sell" whether conferred by a quarterly conference of a Methodist church, a 46 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. charter of a corporation, or a power of attorney, does not include the power to "exchange." Barker vs. Hazel-Fain Oil Co., 219 S. W., 874. 127. Tender of rentals unnecessary where lessor declares he will not accept if tendered or repudiates the contract. White vs. Dennis, 220 S. W., 161. Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354. See Note 301. 128. Rentals must be paid in due time under an "unless" lease, and in case of failure of the lessee to so pay, the action being to declare the lease terminated and not to rescind, it is immaterial that the lessee had a good excuse for nonpayment, or that the lessor was not damaged, or that the lessor did not declare a forfeiture. Gillespie vs. Bobo, 271 Fed., 641. Weiss vs. Claborn, 219 S. W., 884. Ford vs. Barton, 224 S. W., 268. Appling vs. Morrison, 227 S. W., 708. Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40 (Ky.) (limiting rule to "unless" lease). See Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 773, holding "unless" clause is an option to surrender. On this point see Note 69. But see Lyon vs. Union Gas & Oil Co., 274 Fed., 957, holding rentals need not be paid in advance even under "unless" lease, where it is provided rentals may be paid "thereafter." See Notes 44, 45, 69, 75, 157, 234, 269, 287. 129. For distinction between action for failure to 47 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. pay rental under an "or" lease and under an " unless" lease. Weiss vs. Claborn, 219 S. W., 884. Jackson vs. Moore, 191 Pac., 590. Zeigler, etc., vs. Hopkins, etc., 258 Fed., 467. 259 Fed., 43. Turner vs. Lick Creek Oil & Ga s Co., 234 S. W., 191. See Notes 128, 269. 130. Notary's certificate is conclusive except in &se of fraud or misrepresentation. Oar vs. Davis, 105 Texas, p. 487. Fagan vs. Texas Co., 220 S. W., 346. Davis vs. Burkholder, 218 S. W., 1101. Texas Co. vs. Keeter, 219 S. W., 521. But see Hamilton Co. Dev. Co. vs. Sullivan, 220 S. W., 116, citing 136 S. W., 86, and holding rule applies only in innocent purchaser case. And see Crabb vs. Bell, 220 S. W., 623, limiting rule to innocent purchasers. Also, Richmond vs. Hog Creek Oil Co., 229 S. W.. 563. 131. Offer to do equity and repay rentals is essential in action to rescind, except as against assignee of original grantor; and if petition shows payment it is demurrable if no offer to repay is made. Davis vs. Burkholder, 218 S. W., 1101. See Notes 85, 86, 192. 132. Misrepresentations by lessee which induce execution of oil lease, and cau?e lessor to sign a lease different from the representations, as ground for rescission. 48 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Davis vs. Burkholder, 218 S. W., 1101 (but perhaps this does not apply where suit is not to cancel a lease which was never made according to inten- tion of parties). But see: Link vs. Page, 72 Texas, 592. Ry. vs. Fenn, 76 S. W., 597. Black on Rescission, Sec. 52. Texas Co. vs. Keeter, 219 S. W., 521. Smith vs. Fleming, 231 S. W., 136 (as to what lease contains. See Note 89). Richmond vs. Hogg Creek Oil Co., 229 S. W., 563, (must result injuriously). See Note 192. 133. Character of organization of joint-stock asso- ciation with especial reference to tenure of trustees as affecting parties to suit to appoint receiver. Trust and partnership distinguished. Bingham vs. Graham, 220 S. W., 105. See substitute opinion on rehearing, 3-17-20. Davis vs. Hudgins, 225 S. W., 73. 134. What facts authorize appointment of a re- reiver to replace trustee. Bingham vs. Graham, 220 S. W., 105. See substitute opinion on rehearing, 3-17-20. Davis vs. Hudgins, 225 S. W., 73. 135. As to when receiver will be appointed ex parte. Bingham vs. Graham, 220 S. W., 105. See substitute opinion on rehearing, 3-17-20. Davis vs. Hudgins, 225 S. W., 73. 49 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 136. ' ' Completion of a well ' ' ' ' completed well ' ' defined. Frost vs. Martin, 203 S. W., 72. Hall vs. McClesky, 228 S. W., 1004. Uncle Sam Oil Co. vs. Richards, 184 Pac., 575. Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40 (Ky.). ("Completed well" need not be producer.) Sugg vs. Williams, 229 S. W., 72 (as bearing on necessity of paying rentals). T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Harris, 230 S. W., 2S7. See Note 276. 137. Rights of mortgagee with reference to royal- ties and rents. Sullivan vs. Rosson, 4 A. L. R., 1400 and note. 138. That, where payment of rental falls due on Sunday, payment on Monday is sufficient, see Semans vs. Adams, 228 S. W., 353. Plummer vs. So. Oil Co., 214 S. W., 896. (Ky.) But see McLaughlin vs. Brock, 225 S. W., 575, con- struing "unless"' lease. See Note 43. 139. A reservation of a pipe line right of way strip at side of lots, will not control over deed con- veying the fee title to the strip, and the use of the strip by grantor will be limited to the use for which the reservation was created. Gulf Sulphur Co. vs. Ryan, 221 S. W., 310. 140. Specific performance will not lie to compel the drilling of wells contracted to be drilled. 50 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Bois D'Arc Creek Oil & Gas Co. vs. S. W. Oil Corp., 219 S. W., 1115. 141. A check, if accepted by the bank, is a suffi- cient deposit. Tatum vs. Fulton, 218 S. W., 1088. See Notes 67, 114. 142. As to when inadequacy of consideration will be of controlling effect. Nolan vs. Young, 220 S. W., 154. McKay vs. Tally, 220 S. W., 167. See Note 118. 143. Right of party seeking to cancel or rescind to show real motive was to obtain test well, where contract recites a paid consideration. Nolan vs. Young, 220 S. W., 154. McCaskey vs. Schrock, 225 S. W., 418. See Bost vs. Biggers Bros., 222 S. W., 1112. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. Keystone Gas Co. vs. Salisbury, 234 S. W., 290. Millar vs. Mauney, 234 S. W., 498. Bertram Dev. Co. vs. Tucker. 228 S. W., 1027. Davenport vs. Schoenfelt, 229 S. W., 1043. Buie vs. Porter, 228 S. W., 999. Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354. McCaskey vs. McCall, 226 S. W., 432. Epperson vs. Helbron, 225 S. W., 345. Johnson vs. Russell, 220 S. W., 352. See 'Notes 94, 191, 297. 144. Consideration supporting a contract must be that which induces the contract, not an expense a party is put to on account of the contemplated con- tract. 51 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Texas Co. vs. Dunn, 219 S. W., 300. 145. Effect of a lessor taking time to investigate before entering lease contract. Nolan vs. Young, 220 S. W., 154. Bost vs. Diggers Bros., 222 S. W., 1112. 146. "Mining partnerships" discussed and dis- tinguished from usual partnerships. Oil Lease, etc., Syndicate vs. Beeler, 217 S. W., 1054 Harris vs. Young, 131 N. E., 670. See Note 263. 147. Power of trial judge to issue injunction without bond. Oil Lease, etc., Syndicate vs. Beeler, 217 S. W., 1054. See R. S., Art. 4643A. 148. Injunction in favor of one lessee against another adverse lessee, for drilling, will not be granted when no oil is produced, and it is not shown that oil will or will not be produced, mere trespass being rarely enjoined. Browning vs. Hinerman, 224 S. W., 236. 149. Injunction against conjectural damage or abstract wrongs will not be allowed. Browning vs. Hinerman, 224 S. W., 236. 150. Right of applicant for injunction to relief is insufficient to authorize injunction ; the relief must "require the restraint of some act prejudical to the applicant" practically the irreparable injury rule. 52 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Browning vs. Hinerman, 224 S. W., 236. See Collins vs. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 223 S. W., 696. See Note 39. 151. Unproven bank deposit slips are not groper evidence of paymnt of rentals. Browning vs. Hinerman, 224 S. W., 236. 152. Effect of omission of description of land which is homestead, in lease by husband and wife, where such description is not to be inserted until after the instrument is acknowledged. Finkelstein vs. Roberts, 220 S. W., 401. See Note 210. 153. Rights of attorney employed to cancel lease with contingent fee, when plaintiffs compromise. Finkelstein vs. Roberts, 220 S. W., 401. 154. Action to cancel lease may be joined with trespass to try title. anon vs. Scott, 217 S. W., 429. See 134 S. W., p. 275. See McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859. See Note 15. 155. Query, whether Constitution forbids oil lease on homestead because it involves a "condition of defeasance." Browning vs. Hinerman, 224 S. W., 236. 156. Essential allegations in suit to rescind on ground of fraud. 53 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Texas Co. vs. Keeter, 219 S. W., 521. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. Long vs. Galloway, 220 S. W., 414. Von Hatzfeld vs. Haubert, 224 S. W., 220. Morris vs. McGough, 230 S. W., 1092, holding (a) fraud as conclusion need not be alleged, and (b) suppression of truth is fraudulent, and (c) what constitutes fraud. Smith vs. Fleming, 231 S. W., 136 (as to what pro- visions lease contains. See Note 89. See case for rule as to diligence in filing suit). Cooper vs. Casselberry, 230 S. W., 231. See Acts 1919, Ch. 43, R. S. Art. 3973a. See Note 191. 157. A forfeiture of an "or" lease will not be decreed for failure to drill or pay, unless the failure amounts to abandonment. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. See Notes 8, 43, 44, 45, 75, 103, 128, 234. 158. Oil is capable of being owned separetely from the soil. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 390; 15 S. W., p. 398-9. Renfro vs. Hanon, 130 N. E., 740. Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., 807. Luman vs. Davis, 196 Pac., 1078, holding what words necessary to effect severance. Strunk vs. Morris Run Coal Mining Co., 114 Atl., 519. Atty. Gen'ls Op. 2183, 2-21-20. Virginia Coal & Iron Co. vs. Richmond, 104 S. E., 805, which see as to who may sever. Sun Lumber Co. vs. Nelson Fuel Co., 106 S. E., 41, holding grant of timber to be used in mining creates a license. 54 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISION-. Georgia Peruvian Ochre Co. vs. Cherokee Ochre Co., 108 S. E., 609. Beulah Coal Mining Co. vs. Heihn, 180 N. W., 787 (grant or exception). See Note 292. 159. A lease for mining coal providing no time for beginning operations, or no royalty for non- operation, is forfeitable as being invalid for lack of mutuality, at the will of the lessor. Daniel Boone Coal Co. vs. Miller, 217 S. W. ( 666. Grow vs. Davis, 203 Pac., 683. Miller vs. Oden, 90 So., 167. 160. Construction placed by parties on lease con- tract binds the courts. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Harris, 230 S. W., 237. Ohio Oil Co. vs. Burch, 124 N. E., 787. Young vs. Jones, 222 S. W., 691. Eldora Oil Co. vs. Thompson, 230 S. W., 738. White vs. Dennis, 233 S. W., 373. Primmer vs. C. C. Harris Oil Co., 196 Pac., 921. 161. Right of Legislature to restrict to beyond 100 feet of railways the drilling of oil wells, upheld as proper exercise of police power. Winkler vs. Anderson, 3 A. L. R., 268; 177 Pac., 521. See Mapel vs. John, 32 L. R. A., 800. Kelly vs. Ohio Oil Co., 39 L. R. A., 765; 49 N. E., 399. 162. Extraction of gasoline from gas as affecting liability of lessee. 55 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Wolf vs. Blackwell Oil Co., 186 Pac., 484. Wemple vs. Producers Oil Co., 83 So., 232. Lock vs. Russell, 84 S. E., 948. See State vs. Hobart Iron Co., 176 N. W., 758. Twin Hills Gasoline Co. vs. Bradford Oil Corp., 264 Fed., 440. Locke vs. Russell, 84 S. E., 948; 75 W. Va. ( 602. 163. A contract to convey the homestead can not be specifically enforced. Const. Art. 16, Sec. 50. R. S., Arts. 1115 and 4621. Jackson vs. Scoggins, 220 S. W., 302. Burnett vs. Mitchell, 158 S. W., 800. Richardson vs. Terry, 212 S. W., 523. Blue vs. Conner, 219 S. W., 533. Crabb vs. Bell, 220 S. W., 623, and cases cited holding rule otherwise where another homestead has been acquired. And on effect of acquisition of another homestead, see Fisher vs. Gult' Prod. Co., 231 S. W., 450. See Note 189. 164. May there be an escrow where there is not a binding contract? Simpson vs. Green, 231 S. W., 375. Blue vs. Conner, 219 S. W., 533. See Townsend vs. Day, 224 S. W., 283, but see on rehearing. See Jackson vs. Scoggins, 220 S. W., 302. Pearson vs. Kirkpatrick, 225 S. W., 407. 165. As to whether a lease executed by prospec- tive lessor and placed in bank, where prospective lessee is not bound (by contract showing conditions 56 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. of escrow), is enforceable, under the Statute of Frauds, in an action for specific performance. Simpson vs. Green, 231 S. W., 375. Crabb vs. Bell, 220 S. W., 623. Jackson vs. Scoggins, 220 S. W., 302, applying rule to wife's homestead. Blue vs. Conner, 219 S. W., 533. Townsend vs. Day, 224 S. W., 283. See on rehearing, 5-29-20, citing notation of Sup. Ct. in granting writ in Simpson vs. Green, 212 S. W., 263. Pearson vs. Kirkpatrick, 225 S. W., 407. 166. Right to recover a recited though unpaid consideration. McKay vs. Tally, 220 S. W., 167. 167. Right of grantor to dispute payment of recited consideration. McKay vs. Tally, 220 S. W., 167. See Stephenson vs. Stitz, 235 S. W., 271. 168. Even where no original consideration is paid for a lease which is merely an option, the payment of rentals makes it a binding contract. McKay vs. Tally, 220 S. W., 167. De Flores vs. Smith, 236 S. W., p. 507. And it seems that the recitation of payment is binding on appellate court, though trial court found consideration was not paid. McKay vs. Lucas, 220 S. W., 172. But see Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354. 57 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Likewise, entry and development acquiesced in renders such a lease binding. Von Hatzfeld vs. Haubert, 224 S. W., 220. 169. The revocation of an offer must be commu- nicated to the offeree. McKay vs. Tally, 220 S. W., 167. 170. A recited consideration, being an obligation to pay, will support a lease, though unpaid. McKay vs. Tally, 220 S. W., 167. But see Hitson vs. Oilman, 220 S. W., 140. Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354. 171. Where a joint lessor is not made a party in a suit to cancel, the appellate court will remand. McKay vs. Phillips, 220 S. W., 176. ?ee Patton vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 857. See Note 268. 172. Defect of parties plaintiff may always be taken advantage of, even for the first time in the appellate court. McKay vs. Peterson, 220 S. W., 179. But see Patton vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 857. Bonner vs. Texarkana, 227 S. W., 505. (Appellate Court will notice absence of indispensible parties.) Barmore vs. Darragh, 227 S. W., 522. (Appelate Court will notice absence of indispensible parties.) 173. "License" and "lease" distinguished. Priddy vs. Green, 220 T>. W., 243. 58 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. See L. R. A., 1917 D, 1125. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Fox, 228 S. W., 1021. Rees vs. Emmons Coal Mining Co., 106 S. E., 247, distinguishing license from title. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., p. 560. 174. Agreement to deliver oil to be produced must be in writing. Priddy vs. Green, 220 S. W., 243. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 390; 15 S. W., p. 399. See Note 80. 175. An oil lease must be in writing. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 390; 15 S. W., p. 399. Priddy vs. Green, 220 S. W., 243. Texas Co. vs. Tankersley, 229 S. W., 672. Townsend vs. Day, 224 S. W., 283. 176. An assignment of an oil lease must be in writing. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 390; 15 S. W., p. 399. Pantaze vs. McDill, 228 S. W., 962. Priddy vs. Green, 220 S. W., 243. But see op. on rehearing, 4-7-20. 177. A contract to assign an oil lease must be in writing. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 390; 15 S. W., p. 399. Priddy vs. Green, 220 S. W., 243. 59 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 178. Must the authority of an agent to make con- tract for sale of land be in writing? Priddy vs. Green, 220 S. W., 243. See: 2 Ann. Cas. p. 185. Friedman vs. Suttle, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.), 933. 44 L. R. A., 601. 10 L. R. A., p. 103. Note Elliott on Contracts, Sec. 2901. 179. Disclosed and undisclosed principal in con- tract for sale of real estate. Priddy vs. Green, 220 S. W., 243. 180. Estoppel of owner, where land sold by an- other with his consent. Priddy vs. Green, 220 S. W., 243. See op. on rehearing, 4-7-20. 181. Specific performance under (a) an option contract where forfeit money must) be taken as liquidated damages, and (b) a contract for sale, in which forfeit money may be taken down or per- formance enforced. Scarborough vs. Ward, 220 S. W., 274. See La Prelle vs. Brown, 220 S. W., 151. Moss vs. Wren (Sup.), 120 S. W., 847. Settle vs. Winters, 10 Pac., 216. Garrard vs. Cantrell, 232 S. W., 911. (Liquidated damages.) 182. Combination of acts which will amount to conspiracy to obtain land by fraud, so as to result in trust in favor of vendor. 60 TEXAS OIL AMD GAS DECISIONS. Scarborough vs. Ward, 220 S. W., 274. 183. In suit to establish a resulting trust or to rescind for fraud, the vendor may not be compelled to accept the difference between amount actually paid and what should have been paid. Scarborough vs. Ward, 220 S. W., 274. 184. Effect of defective statement of venue in scilicet of notary's certificate of acknowledgment. Reynolds vs. Morton, 136 Pac., 795, citing Alexander vs. Hough ton, 86 Texas, 702; 26 S. W., 937. 185. One dollar, as consideration moving lessor to waive forfeiture on that part of land for which rentals are paid by one assignee and not paid on balance of land, is insufficient to relate back and support original- lease, or operate as an estoppel though it will support such supplemental agreement. Hitson vs. Oilman, 220 S. W., 140 (on rehearing). 186. Evidence of what plaintiff refused from another person is admissible in an action for damages against lessee on account of fraud, where it has been pleaded. Moorman vs. Small, 220 S. W., 127. 187. Under allegation of fraud as to particular transaction, evidence admissible to similar arts and conduct at or about the same time. Moorman vs. Small, 2?0 S. W., 127. 61 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Posey vs. Hansen, 196 S. W., 731. Smith vs. Fleming, 231 S. W., 136, 138-9. 188. Bill of exceptions must be filed to order refusing motion for continuance. Texas City Terminal Co. vs. Thomas, 178 S. W., 707. Hardin vs. Hanson, 220 S. W., 368. 189. A lease on homestead placed in escrow may be retracted by wife at any time prior to delivery. Jackson vs. Scoggins, 220 S. W., 302. See Maynard vs. Gilliam, 225 S. W., 818. See Note 163. 190. Executory contract for exchange of land may be rescinded where one party fails to perform a promise amounting to consideration. Long vs. Galloway, 220 S. W., 414. 191. Right to rescind on ground of false or fraudulent promise to do certain acts in the future. Long vs. Galloway, 220 S. W., 414. Greenameyer vs. McFarlane, 220 S. W., 613 (con sidering necessary allegations and distinguishing false and fraudulent representations). Thomason vs. McEntire, 233 S. W., 616. Fraud must be as to past or present fact, in order to rescind, unless there is an intent to deceive. C. T. & M. C. Ry. Co., vs. Titterington, 84 Texas, 218; 19 S. W., 472. See Lawrence vs. Mahony, 225 S. W., 340. 62 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Cooper vs. Casselberry, 230 S. W., 231. See Notes 143, 156. 192. Misrepresentations upon which rescission may be decreed : Waggoner vs. Zundelowitz, 231 S. W., 721. Garett vs. Green, 164 S. W., 1105. (Representatiou as to value.) Black on Rescission, Par. 79. (Representation as to value.) Boles vs. Aldridge, 153 S. W., 373. Newton vs. Ganss, 26 S. W., 81. Mitchell vs. Zimmerman, 4 Texas, 76. Lee vs. Hall, 114 S. W., 418. Hawkins vs. Wells, 43 S. W., 818. Riggins vs. Tricky, 102 S. W., 918. See especially Massirer vs. Milam, 223 S. W., 302. Buchanan vs. Burnett, 102 Texas, 492; 119 S. W., 1141. White vs. Peters, 185 S. 'W., 659; Richmond vs. Hog Creek Oil Co., 229 S. W., 563. Stewart vs. McAlister, 209 S. W., 704. Simpson vs. Green, 231 S. W., 375. Fisher vs. Gulf Prod. Co., 231 S. W., 450, misrepre- sentation of matter of law. Morton vs. Brinks, 197 Pac. ( 210, which see as ta necessity of tender by plaintiff. Hester vs. fhuster, 234 S. W., 713. Smith vs. Fleming, 231 S. W., 136. (Representa- tions as to contents of lease. See Note 89. Case seems to hold that diligence in filing suit is re- quired but not care in trusting lessee.) See Note 132. 193. Lessor who is in default can not complain of non-development by lessee. Leonard vs. Busch Everett Co. (La.), 72 So., 749. 63 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Brewster vs. Lanyon Zinc Co., 140 Fed., p. 815. Consumers Gas Trust Co. vs. Ink (Ind.? 7J IS E 477, 479. Consumers Gas Trust Co. vs. Worth, 71 N. E., p. 489 Eastern Oil Co. vs. Coulehan (W. Va.), 64 S. E., 836. Jennings vs. So. Carbon Co. (W. Va.), 94 S. E., 363, 365. Weaver Mining Co. vs. Guthrie, 175 S. W., 118. Pyle vs. Henderson (W. Va.), 46 S. E., 791. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859, and cases cited. Ohio Fuel Oil Co. vs. Greenleaf, 99 S. E., 274. See Notes, 202, 262. 194. Measure of damages for non-development in absence of drainage. Bradford Oil Co. vs. Blair (Pa.), 4 Atl., 218. Daughetee vs. Ohio Oil Co. (111.), 105 N. E., 308. Grass vs. Development Co. (W. Va.), 84 S. E., 750. Guffey Pet. Co. vs. Chaisson, 107 S. W., 609. Thornton, Sec. 839. See Notes 33 c, 56, 57, 94. 195. Jury is not required to find in accordance with testimony of interested witnesses, even though uncontradicted. Pickrell vs. Imperial Pet. Co., 231 S. W., 412. Fagan vs. Texas C6\, 220 S. W., 346, citing: A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. vs. Lucas, 148 S. W., 1149. Thomas vs. Saunders, 150 S. W., 769. Gonzales vs. Adoue, 59 S. W., 585. See also, Bank vs. McWhorter, 179 S. W., 1147. Herman vs. Robison, 63 S. W., 658. Burleson vs. Tinnin, 100 S. W., 351. Peerless Fire Ins. Co. vs. Barcus, 227 S. W., 368. 196. Effect of consolidation of depository bank with another bank. 64 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Fagan vs. Texas Co., 220 S. W., 346. 197. AYhere, in suits against trustees, the benefi- ciary need not be made a party referring to trus- tees for joint stock company, etc. Bingham vs. Graham (on rehearing), 220 S. W., 105. 198. When is an instrument ' ' filed ' ' in the Clerk 's Office? Jones vs. MacCorquodale, 218 S. W., 59, holding paper must reach his office, though handed to clerk outside office. See peculiar wording of statute. See Great Western Pet. Corp. vs. Samson, 234 S. W., 727. 199. Priority of filings of apparently simul taneously filed instruments in County Clerk's office. Jones vs. MacCorquodale, 218 S. W., 59. 200. Effect of expression "for school purposes only" in a deed. T. W. Phillips Gas & Oil Co. vs. Lingenfelter (Pa.). 105 Atl., 888; 5 A. L. R. ( 1495, and note. Taylor vs. School Trustees, 229 S. W., 670. Condition and covenant distinguished: 7 A. L. R., 1429. See Notes 123, 124, 207. 201. "It is well settled that error of the trial court in submitting immaterial issues to the jury or the findings of the jury in answer to such issues are harmless and constitute no reason for a reversal of the judgment rendered." 65 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISION-. Greenameyer vs. McFarlane, 220 S. \V., 613. 202. Plaintiff seeking specific performance must have acted in good faith in all matters, and not have delayed unreasonably to show interest in purchase, etc., etc., and contract must be equitable. Greenameyer vs. McFarlane, 220 S. W., 613. See Bergstedt vs. Bender, 222 S. W., 547, for rule where contract once fair has become harsh. See Note 193. 203. Presumption of deed. See Stocksbury vs. Swan, 85 Texas, 563; 22 S. W. 963, cited in Chapman vs. Dickerson, 223 S. W., 318. 204. Lessee's right to remove property. Sanders vs. Davis, 192 Pac.. 694. Rennie vs. Red Star Oil Co., 190 Pac., 391. See Note 288. 205. Cancellation on ground of insanity. Wisdom vs. Peek, 220 S. W., 210. Turner vs. Robertson, 224 S. W., 252. 206. Where impossible to return consideration paid in suit to rescind. Wisdom vs. Peek, 220 S. W., 210. 207. Mineral rights as affected by language in conveyance specifying purpose for which the property is to be used. 66 TEXAS OIL AND GAS, DECISIONS. Note, A. L. R., 5, p. 1498. See Note 200. 208. Respective rights of adjoining owners as to pumping oil. Higgins Oil & Fuel Co. vs. Guaranty Oil Co., 5 A L. R., 411, and note p. 421. See R. S., Art. 4643A. 209. Ownership of fugitive oil. Texas Co. vs. Dougherty, 107 Texas, 226; 176 S. W., 717; L. R. A., 1917 F, 989. Higgins Oil & Fuel Co. vs. Guaranty Oil Co., 5 A. L R., p. 419. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Howard, 212 S. W., 735. Walls vs. Midland Carbon Co., 254 U. S., 300. 210. Pilling in blanks of deed of married woman after acknowledgment. Finkelstein vs. Roberts, 220 S. W., 405. See Fleming vs. Head, 228 S. W., 302. See Notes 88, 152. 211. A deed on a condition subsequent is absolute when the grantor is satisfied with the fulfillment of the condition. Tickner vs. Luse, 220 S. W., 578. See McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., p. 863. 212. "The law applies the rule of strict construc- tion, when a forfeiture is claimed for the breach of a condition subsequent." Tickner vs. Luse, 220 S. W., 578, 580. 67 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. See Cochrum vs. Christy, 223 S. W., 308. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., p. 863. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. See Note 430. * 213. A forfeiture, based on non-performance of a condition subsequent, is waived if not claimed, the fee passing in a deed on such condition. Tickner vs. Luse, 220 S. W., 578, 580. See Epperson vs. Helbron, 225 S. W., 345. See Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 391; 15 S. W., p. 399. See Note 83. 214. No one can take advantage of breach of a i condition subsequent or claim a forfeiture but the grantor and his heirs. Tickner vs. Luse, 220 S. W., 578, 580. Moore vs. Decker, 176 S. W., 816. 215. Time from which Us pendens notice is effec- tive. . Aurelius vs. Stewart, 219 S. W., 863. 216. Possession as constituting notice, as regards (a) notice to grantor, (b) lis pendens, (c) fencing only, (d) what possession is notice of, (e) what kind of possession constitutes notice. Aurelius vs. Stewart, 219 S. W., 863. Heck vs. Morgan, 106 S. E., 413. Besho vs. Genera] Pet. Corp., 199 Pac., 22. Sao Note 72. 68 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 217. A contract to commence "drilling" in a certain radius within a certain time is complied with by bringing material, etc., on ground and contracting for well, within the time. Fast vs. Whitney, 187 Pac., 192. Terry vs. Texas Co., 228 S. W., 1019. See Note 220. 218. Where term of lease expires while good faith drilling is being done, under lease extending term while production is had or development in progress, the lease is continued by the driling. Prowant vs. Sealy, 187 Pac., 235. See, especially, McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Coulehan, 64 S. E., 836. Texas Co. vs. Curry, 229 S. W., 643. Anderson vs. Schaffner, 110 S. E., 566. See Note 285. 219. Payment of rentals is sufficient acceptance of a lease by a corporation. Patton vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 857. 220. "Operations for the drilling of a well for oil," etc., defined. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859. Fast vs. Whitney, 187 Pac., 192, and cases cited. Forney vs. Ward, 62 S. W., 108. Cox vs. Miller, 227 S. W., 652. Terry vs. Texas Co., 228 S. W., .1019. See Pratt vs. Hays, 226 S. W., 362. See Notes 4, 217. 221. Rules for construction of oil leases stated. 69 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Harris, 230 S. W., 237. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859. Prowant vs. Sealy, 187 Pac., 235. Garfield Oil Co. vs. Champlin, 189 Pac., 514. Siler vs. White Star Coal Co., 226 S. W., 102. Carder vs. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co., 201 Pac., 252. 222. Purchaser of part of land covered by lease not entitled to forfeiture, where lease is not subject to forfeiture as to whole tract. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859. See Wescott vs. Bailey, 198 Pac., 189. See Note 268. 223. Forged or defective deed as affecting limi- tation. Todd vs. Hand, 2nd C. C. A., 6-19-20. Davis vs. Howe, 213 S. W., 609. (Void deed pro- cured by fraud.) 224. Necessary showing in suit to compel specific performance of oral contract to convey. Fabra vs. Fabra, 221 S. W., 1008. Simpson vs. Green, 231 S. W., 375. 225. "If reformation of a contract is had it must flow out of and accord Avith the agreement and obli- gation of the parties, and be adapted to the condition of facts to which it is to be applied, a means of exercising the equity powers of the court, to compel the performance of the agreement fairly and legally entered into." Mackenzie vs. Pugh, 221 S. W., p. 1014. 70 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Eldora Oil Co. vs. Thompson, 230 S. W., 738. Harkey vs. Graves, 230 S. W., 750. De Flores vs. Smith, 236 S. W., 505 (married woman's contract). 226. Payment of rental by dishonored check is not payment though lease authorizes payment by check. Broyles vs. Oilman, 222 S. W., 685. 227. \Yhere lease assigned in part, and one assignee pays his part of rental for longer term than required, and another fails to pay at all, lessor can not forfeit if amount so paid equals amount due for term for which payment is required. Broyles vs. Oilman, 222 S. W., 685. (This decision is without regard to whether the part assigned is an undivided interest or a specific number of acres, or to whether the two assignees claim under the same assignment.) See Parris vs. Butler County Oil Co., 195 Pac., 879. See Note 395. 228. The mere fact that assignment of a lease is authorized implies the right to pay rentals on the part assigned only. Hitson vs. Oilman, 220 S. W., 140. Broyles vs. Oilman, 222 S. W., 685. See Note 96. A lease extending to "assigns" impliedly au- thorizes assignment. N. W. Ohio Nat. Gas Co. vs. Ullery, 67 N. E., 494. See Lawrence vs. Mahony, 225 S. W., 340. 71 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 229. Clause authorizing pro rata payment of ren- tals by assignee will be enforced where the assigned interests are in different holders, but where the as- signed interests constitute the whole leasehold and converge in one holder he can not pay rentals on, and thereby hold, one assigned interest. Young vs. Jones, 222 S. W., 691. See Note 268. 230. The right to assign given in a lease nega- tives the idea that the lessee is bound to develop. Host vs. Biggers Bros., 222 S. W., 1112. See Note 33 c. 231. A transferee of the lessor has no greater rights to claim a forfeiture than the lessor had. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859, 863. See Blakely vs. Wilson, 228 S. W., 22. Waiver by lessor as affecting right of transferee to enforce: Olsen vs. Erwin, 229 S. W., 878. 232. For distinction between suit to forfeit and suit to cancel for breach with special reference to aid equity will give, see McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., p. 863-864. Ford vs. Cochran, 223 S. W., 1041. See Note 269. 233. Cancellation seems proper action where lessee fails to comply within the time provided. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 864. 72 . TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 234. A leese automatically forfeits upon failure to either drill or pay rental. Ford vs. Cochran, 223 S. W., 1043. See Notes 8, 43, 44, 45, 75, 128, 157. 235. Reservation of title to minerals vs. reserva- tion of right to explore, as affecting rights of sub- sequent purchasers. States Oil Corp. vs. Ward, 223 S. W., 250, indicating reservation of right to explore may become stale. And see this case in the Supreme Court, 236 S. W., 446. And on this point see Chapman vs. Dearuian, 229 S. W., 1112. And see also Note 348. See Notes 10, 79, 116, 246, 348. 236. Settlement of controversies is favored at law. Von Hatzfeld vs. Haubert, 224 S. W., 220. 237. Duress as a ground for cancellation, dis cussed. Turner vs. Robertson, 224 S. W., 252. 238. Payment of rental to one of several co-ten- ants good in absence of notice to pay otherwise. Thornton, p. 1213. Swint vs. Oil Co., 184 Pac., 202; 63 Am. St., 791; 38 Atl., 1020. Jenkins vs. Williams, 229 S. W., 94. See Note 251. 73 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 239. If a grantor conveys the same property twice, the grantees of the first grantee take title as against the second grantee, though the second deed was recorded first, good faith being assumed. White vs. McGregor, 92 Texas, 556; 50 S. W., 564. (Upon reconsideration of this case, I doubt if the opinion applies to a case in which the first grantee does not place his deed of record prior to the time when the deed of the second grantee goes to record.) See Frank vs. Hiedenheimer, 84 Texas, p. 642; 19 S. W., 855. Delay vs. Truitt, 182 S. W., 732. 240. A holder for value, though with knowledge succeeds to the rights of his grantor without knowl- edge. Huling vs. Moore, 194 S. W., 188, 192. White vs. McGregor, 92 Texas, 556, 559; 50 S. W., 564. 241. Innocent purchaser from husband where title originally vested in him, alone, takes title, though heirs of deceased wife have equitable title. Edwards vs. Brown, 68 Texas, p. 329; 4 S. W., 380; 5 S. W., 87. Patty vs. Middleton, 82 Texas, 586. Johnson vs. Masterson, 217 S. W., 410. Burnham vs. Hardy Oil Co., 195 S. W., 1140. 242. As to whether record of an instrument refer- ring to another instrument is notice of such other instrument, see Frank vs. Hiedenheimer, 84 Texas, p. 642; 19 S. W., 855, and cases cited. 74 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 243. AYhat record is notice of. Wiseman vs. Waters, 174 S. W., 815, 816. Wallace vs. Hoyt, 225 S. W., 425. (Reservation.) 244. First bona fide vendee to put deed on record gets title so that his vendee is protected. Delay vs. Truitt, 182 S. W., 732. See Note 239. 245. Where possession is .taken with consent of owner, temporary injunction will not issiie to trans- fer possession. Collins vs. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 223 S. W., 696. See Note 39. 246. Under a "reservation" in a deed the interest reserved goes to grantor's grantees upon his death: under an "exception" the interest excepted goes to his heirs upon his death. Arden vs. Boone, 187 S. W., p. 997. Donnell vs. Otts, 230 S. W., 864. Arnett vs. Elkhorn Coal Corp., 231 S. W., 219. See Notes 10, 79, 116, 25. 247. Effect of "more or less" on deficit in quan- tity. Nicholson vs. C. C. Slaughter Co., 217 S. W., 716. 248. As to what is sufficient description in con- tract to convey land, or in deed : Morrison vs. Dailey, 6 S. W., 426 (Sup.). 75 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Frazier vs. Lambert, 115 S. W., 1174. Watson vs. Baker, 71 Texas, 747; 9 S. W., 868. Westmoreland vs. Carson, 76 S. W., 622; 13 S. W., 559. Dyer vs. Winston, 77 S. W., 227. Elliott on Contracts, Sec. 2291. Hopkins vs. Walters, 224 S. W., 516, stating rule. Langham vs. Gray, 227 S. W., 741, 744. Mid-Texas Pet. Co. vs. Colcord, 235 S. W., 710. Long vs. Martin, 234 S. W., 91, holding (a) extrinsic evidence will be heard, and (b) certain number of acres will be taken to conform to known lines of survey. 249. As to whether one may be an innocent pur- chaser of an oil and gas lease : National Oil & Pipe Line Co. vs. Teel, 95 Texas, 586; 68 S. W., 979; 67 S. W., 545. Young vs. Jones, 222 S. W., 691. Bailey vs. Williams, 223 S. W., 311. Hennessy vs. Blair, 173 S. W., 871. Spotts vs. Whittaker, 157 S. W., 422-424. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. Speer on Marital Rights, Sec. 339, Note 7. Hitson vs. Gilman, 220 S. W., 140. McKay vs. Lucas, 220 S. W., 172, 175. Isom vs. Rex Crude Oil Co., 147 Cal., 659; 82 Pac., 317. Magnolia Pet. Co. vs. Saylor, 180 Pac., 861. Gilmore vs. O'Neil, 107 Texas, 18; 173 S. W., 203. See "Innocent Purchaser of Oil and Gas Lease" by Hardwicke (1921). Sturm vs. Wiess, 273 Fed., 457. Varnes vs. Dean, 228 S. W., 1017. Aurelius vs. Stewart, 219 S. W., 863. Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Fox, 228 S. W., 1021. Davis vs. Texas Co.. 232 S. W., p. 555. 76 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., p. 870-1. Luckel vs. Phillips Pet. Co., 235 S. W., 605, (writ granted). See Note 252. 250. As to whether an oil lease which does not bind the lessee to explore for oil is voidable as being unilateral. Corsicana Pet. Co. vs. Owens, 222 S. W., 154 (Sup.). McCray vs. Miller, 184 Pac., 781. Aycock vs. Reliance Oil Co., 210 S. W., 848. Griffin vs. Bell, 202 S. W., 1034. Pierce Oil Ass'n vs. Woodrum, 188 S. W., 245. See Wilder vs. Norman, 85 So., 59, illustrating a unilateral lease. Lawrence vs. Mahoney, 225 S. W., 340. Patton vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 857. Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., 867. 251. Owners of the reversion are entitled to the rents. Leonard vs. Caruthers, 236 S. W., 191. Lester vs. Zink, 154 S. W., 1161. Porter vs. Sweeney, 61 Texas, 276. Hearne vs. Lewis, 78 Texas, 276; 14 S. W., 572. Groos vs. Chittim, 100 S. W., 1006. Maxwell vs. Urban, 55 S. W., 1124. Schultz vs. Spreain, 1 App. C. C., 917; 2 Posey, 206. Burden vs. Thayer, 44 Mass., 76; 37 Am. Dec., p. 119. Thornton, p. 1213. See Note 238. 252. As to the character or right conferred by an oil and gas lease: r TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. That an equitable title only is conferred: Xat'l Oil & Pipe Line Co. vs. Teel, 95 Texas, 586; 68 S. W., 979. Hitson vs. Gilman, 220 S. W., 140. Young vs. Jones, 222 S. W., 691. Bailey vs. Williams, 223 S. W., 311. Varnes vs. Dean, 228 S. W., 1017. Millar vs. Mauiiey, 234 S. W., 498. Luman vs. Davis, 196 Pac., 1078, showing signifi- cance of "found" and surrender clause. Leonard vs. Caruthers, 236 S. W., 189. That a legal title is conferred : Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, 383; 15 S. W., 396 (limitation). Lyon vs. Union Gas & Oil Co., 274 Fed., 957. Texas Co. vs. Daugherty, 107 Texas, 226; 176 S. W., 717; L. R. A., 1917 F., 989. Townsend vs. Day, 224 S. W., 283 (must be in writing). Daughetee vs. Oil Co., 105 N. E., 308 (freehold interest). Blue vs. Conner, 219 S. W., 533. Priddy vs. Green, 220 S. W., 243. Finkelstein vs. Roberts, 220 S. W., p. 405. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. Stemmons vs. Matthai, 227 S. W., 364 (venue). Calame vs. Paisley, 130 N. E., 310. Guffey vs. Smith, 237 U. S., 120; 59 L. Ed., 856; 35 Sup. Ct., 532 (freehold interest). Bates vs. Georgia Fertilizer Co., 229 S. W., 153. Gilmore vs. O'Neil, 107 Texas, 18; 173 S. W., 203. Smith vs. Womack, 231 S. W., 840. (See for bearing on right to "sublease" without consent of landlord.) Generally : 78 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Richardson vs. Levi, 67 Texas, 361; 3 S. W., 444. And see, to same effect, Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., p. 870-871. Harvey Coal & Coke Co. vs. Dillon, 53 S. E., 928; 6 L. R. A. (N. S.), 628. Hedley vs. Hoopengarner, 55 S. E., 744. Roach vs. Junction Oil & Gas Co., 179 Pac., 934. Jackson vs. Pure Oil Co., 217 S. W., 959. Emery vs. League, 72 S. W., 603. O'Neil vs. Sun Co., 123 S. W., 172. Fisher vs. Crescent Oil Co., 178 S. W., 908. Pierce Oil Ass'n vs. Woodrum, 188 S. W., p. 248. C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. vs. Potter County, 235 S. W., 295, 302. Thomason vs. Ham, 210 S. W., 561. McEntire vs. Thomason, 210 S. W., 563. Rich vs. Doneghey, 177 Pac., p. 89. Kolachny vs. Galbreath, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.), p. 458. Brunson vs. Carter Oil Co., 259 Fed., 656. Lowther Oil Co. vs. Miller-Sibley Oil Co., 44 S. E., 433; 97 Am. St., 1027. State vs. Welch, 184 Pac., 786. Wilson vs. Youst, 28 S. E., 781; 39 L. R. A., 292. Lawson vs. Kirchner, 40 S. E., 344. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549, as bearing on abandonment. Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., 867, as bearing on abandonment. See "Innocent Purchaser of Oil and Gas Lease," by Hardwicke (1921). Hynson vs. Gulf Prod. Co., 232 S. W., 873. Strickler vs. Stanford, 197 Pac., 866. Notes: 42 L. R. A. (N. S.), 472. 11 L. R. A. (N. S.), 99. L. R. A., 1918 B, 1071-1073. See Notes 119, 249. 253. As to when a cause of action to cancel an 79 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. oil and gas lease on the ground that it was pro- cured by fraud is barred by limitation. C. T. & M. C. Ry. Co. vs. Titterington, 84 Texas, 218; 19 S. W., 472; 31 Am. St., 39. Cooper vs. Lee, 75 Texas, 114; 12 S. W., 483; 21 S. W., 998. Shirley vs. Ry. Co., 78 Texas, 131, 147. T. & P. Ry. Co. vs. Jowers, 110 S. W., 946. Cook vs. Harbin, 174 S. W., 633. Evans vs. Goggan, 23 S. W., 854. Craig vs. Harless, 76 S. W., 594. V Harry vs. Hamilton, 154 S. W., 637. Hamilton vs. Green, 166 S. W., 97. Dean vs. Dean, 214 S. W., p. 509. Simkins on Equity (1911), p. 723. Michie's Digest, Vol. 15, p. 236, et seq. R. S., Art. 5699. McEntire vs. Thomason. 210 S. W., 563. Thomason vs. McEntire, 233 S. W., 616. The rule seems to be the same when the action is based on mistake. Waters vs. East, 56 . W., 939. See Oldham vs. Medearis, 90 Texas, 506; 39 S. W., 919. See Note 333. 254. Rights of community survivor in case cf insanity or death of one spouse. Const., Art. 16, Sec. 50. R. S., Title 52, Chap. 29. R. S., Art. 1115. R. S., Art. 4621 as amended by Act, April 4, 1917. Pierce vs. Gibson, 184 S. W., 502 (Sup.). Priddy vs. Tabor, 189 S. W., Ill (writ granted). Speer on Martial Rights, Sec. 201, also p. 1013. Green vs. Windham, 230 S. W., 726. Lawson vs. Armstrong, 227 S. W., 687. Stone vs. Light, 228 S. W., 1108. Note 34 L. R. A., 223. 80 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 255. After acquired title. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Fox, 228 S. W., 1021 (holding rule applies to oil lease). Baldwin vs. Root, 90 Texas, 550; 40 S. W., 3. Mayes vs. Lewis, 4 Texas, 38. Breen vs. Morehead, 126 S. W., 650. Newton vs. Easterwood, 154 S. W., 646. Gould vs. West, 32 Texas, 338. Tennison vs. Palmer, 142 S. W., 948. Wadkins vs. Watson, 86 Texas, 194; 24 S. W., 385, (married women; see 22 L. R. A., 779). New Domain Oil & Gas Co. vs. McKinney, 221 S. W., 245, holding lease implies warranty of quiel. enjoyment. As related to color of title, see 6 A. L. R., 1430. Smith vs. Bateman, 230 S. W., 831. Green vs. West Texas Coal Mining & Dev. Co., 225 S. W., 548. It seems that the general rules do not apply to a conveyance after which title vests in the grantor under a reversionary right reserved in a former conveyance of his. Diamond vs. Rotan, 124 S. W., 196. Perry vs. Smith, 198 S. W., 1013. 256. Quit-claim deed defined and distinguished: Cook vs. Smith, 107 Texas, 119; 174 S. W., 1094; 3 A. L. R., 940. Green vs. West Texas Coal Mining & Dev. Co., 225 S. W., 548. 257. The right to file a trial amendment is not dependent on the contingency that exceptions to the original plea have been sustained. S. W. Portland Cement Co. vs. Bustillos, 216 S. W., 268. 81 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Goodman vs. Republic Inv. Co., 215 S. W., p. 470. Kenedy Pasture Co. vs. State, 196 S. W., p. 296. 258. A conveyance of an acreage interest in a large tract is good, and conveys an undivided inter- est in the whole tract to the extent of the acreage named. Holman vs. Houston Oil Co., 152 S. W., 890; 174 S. W., 891. Linnartz vs. McCulloch, 27 S. W., 279. Waterhouse vs. Gallup, 178 S. W., 773. Gray vs. Producers Oil Co., 227 S. W., 240. Langham vs. Gray, 227 S. W., 741, 744 See Note 70. 259. Laborers' and material men's liens on prop- erty of lessors and lessees. Chap. 17, Acts 35th Leg. (1917), p. 28, R. S., Arts. 5639a, et seq. R. S., Arts. 5621, 5640, 5644. Williams vs. Magouirk, 235 S. W., 640, as to what lien may cover. Banner Oil & Gas Co. vs. Gordon, 235 S. W., 945. Olson vs. Busy Bee Mining & Dev. Co., 202 Pac., 246. Lucky Boy Min. & Mill Co. vs. Moore, 203 Pac., 556 (parties). Berry vs. McAdams, 93 Texas, 43; 55 S. W., 1112. Harlan vs. Texas Fuel & Sup. Co., 160 S. W., 1145. F. & M. Nat'l Bank vs. Taylor, 91 Texas, 78; 40 S. W., 966 and 876. Wm. Cameron & Co. vs. Truehart, 165 S. W., 58 Partin vs. Wallace, 121 S. W., 515. Waples-Painter Co. vs. Ross, 141 S. W., 1027. Beilharz vs. Illingsworth, 132 S. W., 109. Strang vs. Pray, 89 Texas, 525; 35 S. W., 1051. Hicks vs. Faust, 212 S. W., 608. 82 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Delauney vs. Butler, 55 S. W., 752. Texas Glass & Paint Co. vs. Crowdus, 108 Texas, 346; 193 S. W., 1072. Fullenwider vs. Longmoor, 73 Texas, 480; 11 S. W., 500. Johnson vs. Griffiths, 135 S. W., 686. Meadows vs. Bolin Oil Co., 194 Pac., 916, construing Kansas statute giving liens on mineral rights. Bartels vs. McCullough, 201 Pac., 733. Dix vs. Willfred Coal Co., 132 N. E., 595 (where purchases made under separate contracts). 260. Kecoverability of rentals under an "or" lease. Turner vs. Lick Creek Oil & Gas Co., 234 S. W., 191. Brown vs. Wilson, L. R. A., 1917 B, 1184. (See especially dissenting opinion.) 'Smith vs. Guffey, 202 Fed., p. 109. Clemenger vs. Flesher, 185 S. W., 304. Rich vs. Doneghey, 177 Pac., p. 90. Hancock vs. Diamond Plate Glass Co., 70 N. E., p. 151. Pierce Fordyce Oil Ass'n vs. Woodrum, 188 S. W., p. 25. Weiss vs. Claborn, 219 S. W., 884. Note to Howerton vs. Gas Co., 34 L. R. A. (N. S.), P. 34. Note to Deming Investment Co. vs. Lanham, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.), 50. Healdton O. &. G. Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 756. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 775, limiting rule to "or" lease. See Notes 7, 48, 68, 69. 261. Delivery of deed is essential to constitute a conveyance, but not where the grantor is the proper custodian of the grantee's title papers. 83 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Brown vs. Brown, 61 Texas, 56. Richardson vs. Hutchins, 68 Texas, 81; 3 S. W., 276. McCartney vs. McCartney, 93 Texas, 359; 55 S. W., 310. \yNewman vs. Newman, 86 S. W., 635. Hillebrant vs. Brewer, 6 Texas, 49. Higglns vs. Johnson, 20 Texas, 393. Crawford's Appeal, 61 Pa. St., 52. Deming vs. Williams, 26 Conn., 226. Note 44 L. R. A. (N. S.), 532. Earl vs. Mundy, 227 S. W., 970. ^y Hapgood vs. City Nat. Bank, 230 S. W., 775 (ap- plying delivery rule to lease). 11*4+** * // ^ ? t,2~x /3 **<*/ 7 262. Where operations are prevented by injunc- tion or eviction may lessor have opportunity for development beyond the term of the lease? Keechi Oil & Gas Co. vs. Smith, 198 Pac., 588 (dis- senting opinion). Stahl vs. Van Vleck, 41 X. E., 35, 39. Halla vs. Rogers, 176 Fed., 709; 34 L. R. A. (N. S.). 120. Peshtigo Lumber Co. vs. Ellis, 100 N. W., 834. Pyle vs. Henderson, 46 S. E., 791; 63 S. E. 762. See especially Keen vs. Logan, 84 So., 501, and cases cited. See Sunshine Oil Corp. vs. Randals, 226 S. W., p. 1093, holding diligence required to time of filing of amended petition. York vs. Warren Oil & Gas Co., 229 S. W., 114. Standard Oil Co. vs. Webb, 88 So., 808, (purchaser under lessor.) Brewster vs. Zinc Co., 140 Fed., p. 815. Leonard vs. Busch Everett Co., 72 So., 749. Consumers Gas Trust Co. vs. Ink, 71 N. E., 477-9. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Coulehan, 64 S. E., 836. Treasurer of Brown County vs. Martin, 50 Ohio St.. 197; 33 N. E., 1112. 84 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859. See Millar vs. Mauney, 234 S. W., 498. The question is pretermitted in Smith vs. First Nat. Bank, 198 Pac., 103. See Gulf Ref. Co. vs. Hayne, 86 So., 891. Hutchinson vs. Atlas Oil Co., 87 So., p. 266. Myers vs. Shertzer, 108 Pac., 105; 82 Kan., 275 (on necessity of paying rental pendente lite). See Notes 193, 202, 301, 364. 263. That a corporation may not lawfully enter into a partnership agreement, see Ry. vs. Kelly, 83 S. W., 855. White vs. Pecos Land Co., 45 S. W., 207; Aff. 93 Texas, 698. Sabine Tram Co. vs. Bancroft, 40 S. W., 837; Aff. 93 Texas, 138. Murray Co. vs. Exch. Nat. Bank, 61 S. W., 508. As co mining partnership, see Randall vs. Meredith, 13 S. W., 567. Archer, p. 625. Thornton, Sec. 355. Oil Lease & Royalty Syndicate vs. Beeler, 217 S. W., 1054. Meacher vs. Reed, 24 Pac., 681. See Note 146. For test of partnership, see Fink vs. Brown, 215 S. W., 846. Freeman vs. Huttig, 105 Texas, 560; 153 S. W., 122 See Note 401. Measure of damages : Chapman vs. Warden, 110 S. W., 533, 534. 85 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Nelson vs. S. A. Traction Co., 175 S. W., 434. Simians Contracts and Sales, p. 689. 264. Are all co-tenants necessary parties in a suit to cancel? Pyle vs Henderson, 46 S. E., 791. King vs. Commissioners Court, 30 S. W., 2." 7. Steelsmith vs. Fisher Oil Co., 35 S. E., 15. See, especially, Green vs. Standard Oil Co., 84 So., 211 (where lease forfeits propria vigore). Silberberg vs. Pearson, 75 Texas, 287; 12 S. W., 850. Mash vs. Bloom, 105 N. \V., 831. Nabors vs. Producers Oil Co., 74 So., 527; A. L. R., 1917 D, 1115 (transferees in suit by lessor). Tompkins vs. Hooker, 226 S. W., 1114 (partition). 265'. "By" a certain date includes that date un- less the context forbids that construction. J. C. Engelman Land Co. vs. La Blanco Agr. Co., 220 S. W., 653. Armstrong vs. Palmer, 218 S. W., 627. 266. Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act as affecting forfeiture. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. 267. Assignee of a recorded oil lease may rely on recitation of payment of original consideration, though is was never paid. Hickernell vs. Gregory, 224 S. W., 691. See Note 279. 268. Power of court to cancel as to part of lease undeveloped after discovery. 86 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Pelham Pet. Co. vs. North, 188 Pac., 1069. Carder vs. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co., 201 Pac., 252. See Notes 171, 222, 229, 410. 269. For distinction between forfeiture and hold- ing a party to the contract he has made, see Gillespie vs. Bobo, 271 Fed., 641. Peerless Carbon Black Co. vs. Gillespie, 105 S. E.,. 517, holding forfeitures strictly construed. breaches of contract liberally. Paraffine Oil Co. vs. Cruce, 162 Pac., 716; 14 A. L. R., 952. Gassaway vs. Teichgraeber, 191 Pac., 282. Green vs. Standard Oil Co., 84 So., 211 (all lessors not necessary parties). Niles vs. Meade, 224 S. W., 854. McCallister vs. Texas Co., 223 S. W., 859, 863. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., p. 779. McLaughlin vs.Brock, 225 S. W., 575. See Notes 64, 128, 129, 232, 277, 282. 270. "The lessee is entitled * * * to do the things necessary to make the operation successful." Rennie vs. Red Star Oil Co., 190 Pac., 391. Imperial Elkhorn Coal Co. vs. Webb,- 225 S. \V., 1077. Clayborn vs. Camilla Red Ash Coal Co., 128 Va., 383; 105 S. E., 117; 15 A. L. R., 946. Yuba Inv. Co. vs. Yuba Consol. Gold Fields, 194 Pac., 19, applying rule to exception in deed. See Notes 399, 436. 271. Check mailed on day rental due, reaching bank next clay, and deposited next day is not timely. Gasaway vs. Teichgraeber, 191 Pac., 282. 87 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 272. Power of Legislature to create a body to make rules governing operation of mines. State vs. Howat. 191 Pac., 585. 273. The fact that a lease is for 20 years, or otherwise onerous, does not affect its validity. McKee vs. Thornton, 192 Pac., 212. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co. vs. Whited, 196 Pac., 688. Skinner vs. Ajax Portland Cement Co., 197 Pac., 875 (99 years). Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, 383; 15 S. W., 396. 274. Past acceptance of overdue rentals as af- fecting forfeiture for delay in payment. Denniston vs. Kenova Oil Co., 220 S. W., 1078. Ohio Fuel Oil Co. vs. Greenleaf, 99 S. E., 274. 275. "The least favored of all forfeitures are those founded upon mere delay in the payment of money. ' ' Denniston vs. Kenova Oil Co., 220 S. W., 1078. See Note 269. 276. "Well;" "completion of well" defined. Knight Bros. vs. Standard Oil Co., 84 So., 653. See Note 136. 277. "Prevent a forfeiture" defined; has no ref- erence to status once fixed. Rowe vs. Atlas Oil Co , 84 So., 485. Jenkins vs. Williams, 229 S. W., 94. See Note 269. 88 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 278. Owner of minerals not responsible for waste to surface by another person. Wemple vs. Pasadena Pet. Co., 85 So., 230. 279. Purchaser required to ascertain only whe- ther record lessee or assignee has paid rental ; rule does not require investigation as to whether pay- ments have been made by holder whose title is not of record. Baird vs. Atlas Oil Co., 84 So., 366. See Note 267. 280. Amount of gas lessor may use under clause authorizing use of gas for domestic purposes, and when it may not be used by hjm. Pittsburgh & W. Va. Gas Co. vs. Richardson, 100 S. E., 220; 9 A. L. R., 86. See Pittsburgh & West Va. Gas Co. vs. Nicholson, 105 S. E., 784. Hutchinson vs. Atlas Oil Co., 87 So., 265 (pending litigation). Bassell vs. West Va. Cent. Gas Co., 103 S. E., 116; 12 A. L. R., 1398, and note. Weaver vs. Graham, 199 Pac., 924. See Note 12. 281. Conveyance setting forth terms for organi- zation of company to handle property conveyed strictly construed, and terms must be complied with. Kennedy vs. Burns, 101 S. E., 156. 282. Consideration is necessary to support waiver of breach of contract. 89 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Niles vs. Meade, 224 S. W., 854. Jenkins vs. Williams, 229 S. W., 94. 283. Where time is essential vis major will not excuse non-performance. Niles vs. Meade, 224 S. W., 854. See McLaughlin vs. Brock, 225 S. W., 575. See Note 63. 284. Waste as related to opening of new mine and working of old one. Swayne vs. Lone Acre Oil Co., 98 Texas, 597; 86 S. W., 740; 69 L. R. A., 986. 285. What must be state of production or opera- tions at end of specified time to extend term. Ohio Fuel Oil Co. vs. Greenleaf, 99 S. E., 274. Anthis vs. Sullivan Oil & Gas Co. ,203 Pac., 187, and cases cited. Caylor vs. Bankers Oil Co., 203 Pac., 735 (holding rentals may not secure extension after production has ceased). Knight Bros. vs. Standard Oil Co., 84 So., 653. See Notes 218, 405. 286. Vis major as affecting diligence. Ohio Fuel Oil Co. vs. Greenleaf, 99 S. E., 274. 287. Estoppel of lessor to claim that time is essential in payment of rentals. Ohio Fuel Oil Co. vs. Greenleaf, 99 S. E., 274. 288. Rights of parties where the removal of cas- ing is objected to. 90 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. S. W. Oil & Gas Co. vs. Kimball Oil Dev. Co., 224 S. W., 1111. See Note 204. 289. A contract to give an oil and gas lease on Producer's 88 form is too uncertain to be enforce- able. Maynard vs. Gilliam, 225 S. W., 818. Grow vs. Davis, 203 Pac., 683. Garrard vs. Cantrell, 232 S. W., 911, showing what blanks form 88 contains, and holding that the rule is otherwise where the lease is already in ex- istence. See Note 353. 290. In an action by lessor against lessee, sub- sequent lessees are not necessary, though possibly proper parties. Patton vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 857. 291. A lease must name all lessors, and can not include them by using the term "et al. " Patton vs. T. P. C. & O. Co., 225 S. W., 857. But see Supreme Court decision in this case dated March 8, 1922. 292. Rights of owner of surface and those or OAvner of minerals compared. Imperial Elkhorn Coal Co. vs. Webb, 225 S. W. 1077. Mclntire vs. Marian Coal Co., 227 3. W., 298. Strunk vs. Morris Run Coal Mining Co., 114 Atl., 519. See Note 158. 91 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 293. A co-tenant may recover land for all tenants. May vs. Slade, 24 Texas, 205. But not damages. Leonard vs. Worsham, 45 S. W., 336, and cases cited. 294. "Same general locality" "vicinity," de- fined. Sunshine Oil Coi-p. vs. Randals, 226 S. W., 1090. 295. When a well is discontinued by contractor at orders of employer. Empire Gas & Fuel Co. vs. Couch, 226 S. W., 1103. 296. Venue of suit to cancel lease conferring in- terest in land. Stemmons vs. Matthai, 227 S. W., 364. Texas Co. vs. Tankersley, 229 S. W., 672. See Note 360. 297. A promise to drill if production had on ad- joining premises, is sufficient consideration to sup- port a lease. Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354. See Note 143. 298. "When the thing impliedly to be done is of uncertain nature, an express agreement in reference to same will exclude an implied covenant to do some- thing else, though it may be that subsequent events may show that such other thing is reasonable." 92 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Burt vs. Deorsam, 227 S. W., 354. 299. Classification of land prior to sale as affect- ing right of State to make second grant affecting minerals. Johnson vs. Sunshine Oil Co., 227 S. W., 698. 300. "Begin operations" defined. Cox vs. Miller, 227 S. W., 652. See Note 220. 301. Must lessee pay rental pendente litef Myers vs. Shertzer, 82 Kan., 275; 108 Pac., 105. Richmond vs. Hog Creek Oil Co., 229 S. W., 563. See Notes 127, 262. 302. "Producing well" defined. Kies vs. Williams, 228 S. W., 40, 42. 303. A contract and lease contemporaneously made are to be construed together. Huber vs. Smith, 228 S. W., 339. 304. A lease containing blanks not filled in is the same as if the clause containing the blanks had not been inserted. Fleming vs. Head, 228 S. W., 302. See Note 210. 305. "Barrel" defined. Pope vs. Joschke, 228 S. W., 986. 93 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 306. Conclusiveness of attorney 's opinion on title where provided for in contract to convey. Lea vs. Helgerson, 228 S. AV., 992. 307. Abandonment is a question of fact for the jury, and is determined largely by intention. Clutter vs. Wisconsin Texas Oil Co., 233 S. W., 322. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. Buie vs. Porter, 228 S. W., 999. Hall vs. McClesky, 228 S. W., 1004. Hall vs. Roberts, 228 S. W., 1008. Battle vs. Adams, 229 S. W., 930. Luman vs. Davis, 196 Pac., 1078. Millar vs. Mauney, 234 S. W., 498 (mixed law and fact). See Note 310. 308. Effect of pasage of law denouncing an act on obligation to perform contract to do such act. Buie vs. Porter, 228 S. W., 999. 309. Necessity of procuring order of court au- thorizing leasing of surface rights of ward bv guardian. Buie vs. Porter, 228 S. W., 999. 310. Discussion of the law of abandonment as relating to (a) Eights may be lost by abandonment. (b) Abandonment is a question of intention. (See Note 307.) (c) On abandonment, title is lost. (See Note 331.) 94 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. (d) Long delay as proof of abandonment. (e) Absence of forfeiture clause immaterial. (f) Legal title may not be abandoned. (See Note 348.) (g) Cessation as proof of abandonment. (See Note 28.) (h) Abandonment is question of fact for jury. (See Note 307.) (i) Exhaustion of discovery well. (See Notes 32, 408.) (j) Facts amounting to abandonment. (See Notes 24, 120.) (k) Burden of proof. (1) Definition of abandonment. Hall vs. McClesky, 228 S. W., 1004. Burnett vs. Summerour, 228 S. W., 1013 ("d," "e" and "g" supra). Hall vs. Roberts, 228 S. W., 1008. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549 ("d" supra). 311. Extension of time for completing well does not allow more time than is necessary to complete well, where time for further performance starts run- ning from such completion. Hall vs. McClesky, 228 S. W., 1004. Hall vs. Roberts, 228 S. W., 1008. 312. Rescission by vendor on the strength of his superior title. Maverick vs. Perez, 228 S. W., 148. Canon vs. Scott, 230 S. W., 1042. 313. A "drilled well" is a completed well. "Fourth well drilled" defined. 95 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Harris, 230 S. W., 237. 314. Injunction by lessee against interference by lessor. York vs. Warren Oil & Gas Co., 229 S. W., 114. 315. Implied obligation to exhaust land of mineral. Bates vs. Georgia Fertilizer Co., 229 S. W., 153. See Note 408. 316. Relinquishment of permit is equivalent to abandonment. Fox vs. Robison, 229 S. W., 456. 317. Implied obligation to develop after expira- tion where holdover permitted. Texas Co. vs., Curry, 229 S. W., 643. 318. Abandonment can not be claimed by lessor who has repudiated lease. Texas Co. vs. Curry, 229 S. W., 643. 319. An assignment of an oil and gas lease does not import a warranty of title. White vs. Murphy, 229 S. W., 641. But see Zelma Oil Co. vs. Nemo Oil Co., 203 Pac., 203 (measure of damages). 320. Right to pay quarterly rentals one year in advance. 96 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Link vs. State's Oil Corp., 229 S. W., 693. 321. That an action will lie against a grantor with notice conveying to an innocent purchaser. Olsen vs. Erwin, 229 S. W., 878. 322. Performance by third party is sufficient to prevent forfeiture. Battle vs. Adams, 229 S. W., 930. See Notes 227, 395. 323. A deed to standing timber, severs and confers perpetual right to remove. Chapman vs. Dearman, 229 S. W., 1112. See Note 158. 324. Measure of damages for failure to drill offset well where there is drainage. Blair vs. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co., 230 S. W., 286. See Note 33 (a). 325. Failure to drill offset well as an abandon- ment. Blair vs. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co., 230 S. W., 286 326. Acts of parties construed to avoid forfeiture Milner vs. McGuire, 230 S. W., 421. 327. Refusal to accept a tender on ground of one objection is a waiver of all other objections. Milner vs. McGuire, 230 S. W., 421. 97 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 328. Actual payment into the registry of the court of money tendered permits the appellate court to render rather than remand. Milner vs. McGuire, 230 S. W., 421. 329. Neither a verbal assignment nor a mere con- tract presupposing an assignment will support the plea of innocent purchaser. Atlantic Oil Producing Co. vs. Dawkins, 230 S. W., 525. 330. Character of action, diminution of damages, etc., in suit for breach of contract to drill oil well. Osage Oil & Ref. Co. vs. Lee Farm Oil Co., 230 S. W., 518. See Note 376. 331. The effect of an abandonment by a lessee is to divest title out of himself and re-invest title in lessor. S. W. Oil Corp. vs. Bois D'Arc Creek Oil & Gas Co., 230 S. W., 821. Four Brotherhood Oil Co. vs. Keller, 235 S. W., 604, (abandonment as ground for forfeiture). See Note 310. 332. Injunction to prevent interference with the taking of casing-head gas. Chas. F. Noble Oil & Gas Co. vs. Altex Pet. Co., 230 S. W., 758. 333. It seems that due diligence is required in 98 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. filing suit to rescind, after discovery of fraud which would support action. Smith vs. Fleming, 231 S. W., 136, 140, and cases cited. See Note 253. 334. Right of lessee to stimulate flow of oil which reduces gasoline production from gas, where lessee has contracted to deliver gas for gasoline purposes. Beeson vs. Drake Oil Co., 97 S. E., 414; 8 A. L. R., 414. See Note 422. 335. Where lease covers various tracts, is lessee under obligation to treat each tract as if covered by separate lease? Gypsy Oil Co. vs. Cover, 189 Pac., 540; 11 A. L. R., 129, and note. Producer's Oil Co. vs. 'Snyder, 190 S. W., 514. See Notes 31, 32, 76, 322, 410. 336. A lessee is not bound to carry operations beyond the point where the investment is profitable to him. Gypsy Oil Co. vs. Cover, 189 Pac., 54n; 11 A. L. R., 129, 137, and cases cited, showing what may be considered in determining profitableness. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 394; 15 S. W., p. 400. See Notes 102, 350. 337. As to the necessity of notice to grantee in suit to rescind, where there has been part payment or part performance. 99 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Canon vs. Scott, 230 S. W., 1042, 1047. See Note 430. 338. Effect of erasure of part of deed or lease and insertion therein. Nabors vs. Nabors, 230 S. W., 1109. Curry vs. Hintori, 231 S. W., 217. 'Smith vs. Fleming, 231 S. W., 136. 339. It is not necessary to allege fraud as a con- clusion, but allegation of acts from which the court infers fraud is sufficient. Morris vs. McGough, 230 S. W., 1092. 340. There can be no innocent 'purchaser under an altered instrument where the title depends on the alteration. Curry vs. Hinton, 231 S. \V., 217. See Steffian vs. Milmo Nat. Bank, 6 S. W., 823 (undelivered deed). 341. There is no estoppel by acceptance of rentals for the time a lease is unquestionably good to contest it for a time it is clearly not good. Curry vs. Hinton, 231 S. W., 217. 342. Distinction between "condition" and "limi- tation." Eastham vs. Eastham, 231 S. W., 221. 343. The mere statement in a pleading that a party is ready to pay is not good as a plea of tender. 100 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Fisher vs. Gulf Prod. Co., 231 S. \V., 450. 344. Where lessee begins operations he must con- tinue them with diligence, though he was not re- quired to begin them. Blair vs. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co., 230 S. W., 286. 345. Written or typewritten words control over the printed words of a contract, where there is a conflict. Producers Oil Co. vs. Snyder, 190 S. W., 514. Ins. Co. vs. Kemper, 34 S. W., 393. 346. May a lessee under an oil lease sublet with- out landlord's consent? R. S., Art. 5489. Smith vs. Womack, 231 S. W., 840, indicating that he may if the lease is a conveyance. See Lowry vs. Atlantic Coal Co., 115 Atl., 847. See Notes 228, 252. 347. As to validity of a release by president of a corporation which has forfeited its right to do business by non payment of franchise tax. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. 348. A lease conveying a legal title may not be abandoned, but it seems that one conveying the right to explore may be. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. Scott vs. Laws, 215 S. W., 81, 13 A. L. R., 369 and note. 101 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Marnett Oil & Gas Co. vs. Munsey, 232 S. W., 867, 872, 869. Walls vs. Cruse, 235 S. W., 199. See Notes 235, 310. 349. Estoppel of a lessee to assert his title must be based on affirmative acts, etc. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., 549. 350. Where royalties, or a fixed sum, are to be paid out of profits of a lease, the lessee is not required to operate or develop at a loss. Owens vs. Curd, 232 S. W., 639, (distingiushing a lease calling for payment out of "profits"). See Notes 336, 359. 351. A leasehold interest under a lease not au- thorizing an assignment is not subject to forced sale. Boone vs. Bank, 43 S. W., 594. But see Farnum vs. Hefner, 79 Cal., 575; 21 Pac., 955. 352. "Commercial lease" defined. Garrard vs. Cantrell, 232 S. W., 911, 912. 353. A contract to give a lease need not describe the lease very definitely. Gairard vs. Cantrell, 2iJ2 S. W., 911. See Note 289. 354. The courts will take judicial notice of the 102 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. discovery and use of gas, and of the fact that its discovery increases the value of land. Kollaer vs. Puckett, 232 S. W., 914, 916. 355. Time from which notice of forfeiture is effective. Epperson vs. Helbron, 225 S. W. ( 345; 15 A. L. R., 597. 356. Where one contracts to convey a lease on land he has a contract to buy, he may insist on his rights under the contract to sell the lease. Garrard vs. Cantrell. 2P.2 S. W., 911. And he need not have a contract to buy, if he is able to perform his contract to sell at the proper time. Long vs. Martin, 234 S. W., 91. 357. "Where liquidated damages are recoverable they may be recovered though no actual damages are suffered. Garrard vs. Cantrell, 232 S. W., 911. See for dis- cussion of liquidated damages, when recoverable and when not. See Long vs. Martin, 234 S. W., 91, holding money paid under escrow contract to be liquidated damages, not penalty. 358. Lease may be surrendered orally. Ford vs. Miller, 232 S. W., 604. 359. As to what is necessary where part of the 103 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. consideration for a transfer is to be paid out of production. Owens vs. Curd, 232 S. W., 639. See Notes 35, 350. 360. Venue of suit for severed minerals as dis- tinguished from suit for land. * Kelvin Lumber & Supply Co. vs. Copper State Mining Co., 232 S. W., 858. See Note 296. 361. A deed in escrow, where the terms of the escrow have been complied with, relates back and conveys title from date of delivery. Gully vs. Nystel, 233 S. W., 122, 125. 362. "Mineral" defined. Carothers vs. Mills, 233 S. W., 155*, 157. 363. As bearing on right of pipe line company to store its own oil in its own storage tanks, see the following case holding that a warehouseman may not store his own grain in his own Avarehouse in contravention of the rights of the public. Central Elevator Co. vs. People, 174 111., 203; 51 N. E., 254. 364. The existence of a lien under which there is no ouster or threatened ouster will not excuse de- velopment. Clutter vs. Wisconsin Texas Oil Co., 233 S. W., 322. See Note 262. 104 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 365. For distinguishing features between a deed and a will, see T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Bruce, 233 S. W., 535. See Note 433. 366. "What amounts to delivery of a deed? T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Bruce, 233 S. W., 535. 367. "When is oil discovered? T. P. C. & O. Co. vs. Bruce, 233 S. W., 535. See Note 433. 368. A parol contract to sell land or alternatively to pay liquidated damages, is not enforceable in specie or for damages. Sonnenberg vs. Ernst, 233 S. W., 564. 369. Limitation does not run against wife's suit to cancel oil and gas lease on homested. Thomason vs. McEntire, 233 S. W., 616. 370. Waiver aod estoppel distinguished. Walker vs. Lane, 233 S. W., 634. 371. Extension of time for performance to an assignee under lessee, as inuring to benefit of lessee under doctrine of estoppel. Walker vs. Lane, 233 S. W., 634. 372. Parol rescission of deed. 105 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Hunt vs. Evans. 233 S. W., 854. 373. For a consideration of the law of rescission on ground of fraudulent concealment, see Long vs. Martin, 234, S. W., 91. 374. "The only burden placed by the escrow i^ that before a party may recover on a contract in escrow he must show he has performed the condi- tions, or offered to do so, and was prevented there- from, without his fault." Long vs. Martin, 234, S. W., 91. 375. For. discussion of relative obligations of parties to contract to convey with reference to making and meeting objections to title, see Long vs. Martin, 234 S. W., 91, 99, and cases cited. See Note 435. 376. Measure of damages for breach of contract to drill a well. Henry Oil Co. vs Head, 163 S. W., 311. See Note 330. 377. Use of a stereotype clause in printed form will not be given unusual construction merely be- cause used under circumstances rendering applica- tion of usual construction difficult or impossible. Turner vs. Lick Creek Uil & Gas Co., 234 S. W., 191. 378. Development on nearby lands does not 106 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. satisfy an obligation to drill 011 a particular tract, though such obligation is implied. Keystone Gas Co. vs. Salisbury, 234 S. W., 290. 379. An oil and gas lease is a cloud on the title to land. Hester vs. Shuster, 234 S. W., 713. 380. Alternative actions available for lessor when lessee has forfeited his rights by non development. Millar vs. Mauney, 234 S. W., 498. See Note 94. 381. "Merchantable" or "marketable" title de- fined. Ailing vs. Vander Stucken, 194 S. W., 443. Giles vs. Union Land Co., 196 S. W., 312. Roberts vs. McFaddin, 74 S. W., p. 109. Hinton vs. Martin, 236 S. W., 267, on whether title acquired by adverse possession is marketable. 382. A general manager of a coal company has no implied authority to surrender a lease. Standard Island Creek Coal Co. vs. Shamrock Coal Co., 104 S. E., 106. 383. A lessee is the agent of lessor as pertaining to the right of lessor at equity to require an account- ing. Sperry vs. Premier Pocahontas Collieries Co., 104 S. E., 486. 107 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 384. A lessee may not use leased premises for development of other premises. Clayborn vs. Camilla Red Ash Coal Co., 105 S. E., 117; 128 Va. ( 383; 15 A. L. R., 946. 385. TVhen delay rentals once paid may be re- covered. Hope Natural Gas Co. vs. Jarvis, 106 S. E., 889. 386. Kind of instrument necessary to accomplish the surrender of an oil and gas lease. Roberts vs. Huntington Dev. & Gas Co., 109 S. E.. 348. 387. Surface owners as parties to boundary snit between owners of mineral-:. Georgia Peruvian Ochre Co. vs. Cherokee Ochre Co., 108 S. E., 609. 388. An arrangement by lessee with an officer of the depository bank for the payment of rental in a manner different from that authorized by lease. will not prevent a forfeiture under an "unless" lease. Harter vs. Edwards, 195 Pac., 607. 389. "Payment" denned. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 773. 390. "Unless" clause as authorizing surrender by non-payment of rental. 108 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 773. Elless vs. State Bank, 195 Pac., 875. See Note 69. 391. Optional contracts are construed strictly against the party not bound. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., 773. 392. "Depositor" defined. Eastern Oil Co. vs. Smith, 195 Pac., p. 780. 393. Surrender clause authorizes lessee by making payment to surrender, not lessor by making payment to demand surrender. Elless vs. State Bank, 195 Pac., 875. 394. As to whether record of assignment of lease is notice to lessor. Parris vs. Butler County Oil Co., 195 Pac., 879. 395. It seems that rentals may be paid by any party at interest. Parris vs. Butler County Oil Co., 195 Pac., 879. See Note 227. 396. The frightening of cattle is not an element of damages under contract to pay for damages to growing crops. Hiatt vs. Wichita Natl. Gas Co., 196 Pac., 448. 397. Escape of oil or gas from pipe line, permitted 109 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. negligently by pipe line company, as basis of suit for damage to cattle. Todd vs. Prairie Pipe Line Co., 196 Pac., 623. See Note 398. 398. Injuries to cattle from cyanide pond. Williams Estate Co. vs. Nevada Wonder Mining Co., 196 Pac., 844. See Note 397. 399. The lessor may use the leased premises in any way so as not to interfere with operations. Primmer vs. C. C. Harris Oil Co., 196 Pac., 921. See Note 270. 400. When and under what kind of instruments are mineral interests to be taxed? Stephens County vs. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., S. W., , (No. 3569, pending in Texas Supreme Court on certified question). Texas Co. vs. Daugherty, 107 Texas, 226; 176 S W., 717; L. R. A., 1917 F, 9S9. Luman vs. Davis, 196 Pac., 1078. See Note 252. 401. "When are individuals partners in oil and gas lease matters? Wells vs. Shiver, 197 Pac., 460. A. C. Houston Lumber Co. vs. Marshall, 191 Pac., 861. Laughner vs. Wally, 112 Atl., 105. Hand vs. Allen, 128 N. E., 305. Harris vs. Young, 131 N. E., 670. See Notes 133, 146, 263. 110 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 402. Parol evidence inadmissible to vary terms of oil and gas contract, where no fraud or mutual mistake is shown. Hazelton vs. Chaffin, 197 Pac., 870. 403. Who may act for a bank in giving a lease. Smith vs. First Nat. Bank, 198 Pac., 103. 404. Rule for measure of damages for injury to- mineral leasehold estate, stated. Producers Supply Co. vs. Maple Leaf Oil Co., 19& Pac., 577. 405. A lease expires at end of stated term unless: extended by production. Perkins vs. Saunders, 198 Pac., 954. Parks vs. Sinai Oil & Gas Co., 201 Pac., 517. See Note 285. 406. A person holding a lease as security for a debt is bound to pay the rentals thereunder. Gordon vs> Wilcox. 200 Pac., 282. 407. Second contract construed to supplant first,, and fix rights and obligations of parties. Carder vs. Blackwell Oil & Gas Co., 201 Pac., 252. Calame vs. Paisley, 130 N. E., 310 (extension). 408. When are minerals in a tract of land ex- hausted? Ill TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Van Liew vs. Norwood-White Coal Co., 179 N. W., 960. See Note 315. 409. Injunction by lessor against continued and unprofitable drilling by lessee. Elston vs. Atlas Oil Co., 86 So., 490. 410. Where several lessors join in a lease cover- ing several tracts, a well on either tract satisfies the lease. Ohio Oil Co. vs. Fowler, 128 N. E., 626. See Producers' Oil Co. vs. Snyder, 190 S. W., 514. requiring development on each of several tracts. See Note 335. 411. "When is lien of mortgagee of leasehold inter- est superior to that of partner'* Harris vs. Young, 131 N. E., 670. 412. All persons at interest and who will be affected by a decree, are indispensable. Associated Oil Co. vs. Miller, 269 Fed., 16. 413. A clause for arbitration of a lease relieves the lease of certain uncertainties, as, for instance, rate of renewal payments where left to future agree- ment. Dickinson vs. Robinson, 272 Fed., 77. 414. "Release" and "disclaimer" defined and distinguished. 112 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Miller vs. Eastabrook, 273 Fed., 143. 415. Who are not ''willful trespassers?" Jeems Bayou- Hunting & Fishing Club vs. United States, 274 Fed., 18. 416. A covenant in an assignment is for the bene- fit of the lessee, not the lessor. McLear vs. Balmat, 186 N. Y. Sup., 180. 417. Upon whom may notice to develop be served ? Great Western Pet. Corp. vs. Samson, 234 S. W., 727. See Notes 1, 430. 418. "Immediately" defined. Bell vs. Kilburn, 234 S. W., 730. 419. Forfeiture of an assignment is governed by the rules of forfeiture of a lease. Bell vs. Kilburn, 234 S. W., 730. 420. Injunction will not lie to enforce forfeiture. Burnett Coal Mining Co. vs. Schrepferman, 133 N. E., 34. 421. "If" and "then" defined. Paraffine Oil Co. vs. Cruce, 14 A. L. R., 952, and note; 162 Pac., 715. 422. Right of lessee to stimulate flow of gas so as to reduce rents. 113 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Bassell vs. West Va. Cent. Gas Co., 103 S. E., 116; 12 A. L. R., 1398, and note. See Note 334. 423. Garnishment of money in escrow. Hallock vs. Natl. Body & Mfg. Co., 188 Pac., 479; 10 A. L. R., 737. 424. Want of delivery of a deed as affecting the innocent purchaser rule. Steffian vs. Milmo Nat. Bank, 6 S. W., 823. 425. Measure of damages for prevention of drill ing. Note, 15 A. L. R., 768. 426. Relative rights of coal lessee and oil lessee. Claborn vs. Camilla Red Ash Coal Co., 128 Va., 383; 105 S. E., 117; 15 A. L. R., 946. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. vs. Portsmouth Refractories Co., 276 Fed., 520. 427. A debtor who cancels a pre-existing debt a< consideration for purchase is not an innocent pur- chaser. Overstreet vs. Manning, 67 Texas, 599, 657; 4 S. \V. 248. 428. "Franchise" defined license distinguished. Davis vs. Texas Co., 232 S. W., p. 560. 429. "Technical words are to be interpreted as 114 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. usually understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate unless it is evident that they were used in a different sense." Frost vs. Martin, 203 S. W., p. 74, holding expert testimony admissible. 430. Demand for performance is held to be pre- requisite to forfeiture of estate held on condition subsequent. Benavides vs. Hunt, 79 Texas, p. 397; 15 S. W., p. 402. See Notes 1, 337, 417. 431. Measure of damages for breach of contract to lease. Wilkirson vs. Yarbrough, No. 9695, 2nd Court of Civil Appeals, 11-26-21. 432. "From and after" defined. Tull vs. Ball, 200 S. W., 988. 433. "Discovery" denned. U. S. vs. Safe Investment Gold Mining Co., 258 Fed., 872. Luman vs. Davis, 196 Pac., 1078. Moore vs. Palmer, 174 N. W., p. 95. See Note 367. 434. "Royalty" defined. Curlee vs. Anderson, 235 S. W., 622. 435. "Full and complete abstract" defined: waiver of objections to abstract. 115 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. Coughran vs. Briam, 235 S. W., 627. See Note 375. 436. Mineral lessee may use surface to extent necessary. Mid-Texas Pet. Co. vs. Colcord, 235 S. W., 710. Friedline vs. Hoffman, 115 Atl., 845. See Note 270. 437. As to conflicting obligations of lessee under contracts with adjoining mineral interest holders, see Mid-Texas Pet. Co. vs. Colcord, 235 S. W., p. 715. 438. Eequisites of contract under Statute of Frauds. Latham vs. Kistler, 235 S. W., 938. 439. Acts of lessor as constituting estoppel to claim term of lease has expired. De Flores vs. Smith, 236 S. W., 505. 440. The bringing in of nearby dry holes does not excuse non development under express contract to drill. Mollohan vs. Patton, 202 Pac., 616. 441. A lease may not be released by the placing of a release on record by the lessee without the lessor's knowledge. Parlow vs. Frankson, 203 Pac., 299. 116 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. 442. A lease and a contract subsequently made will be construed together. Towell vs. Fluharty, 203 Pac., 702, (showing con- sideration for supplemental contract). 443. Lessee is under duty to clear the record after the expiration of lease. Caylor vs. Bankers Oil Co., 203 Pac., 735. 444. A State may enact a law forbidding waste, such being a valid exercise of its police power. Walls vs. Midland Carbon Co., 254 U. S., 300, (hold- ing landowner has no absolute property in fugitive minerals). 445. What is diligence in drilling second well where first is dry hole, and development liquidates rentals. Knight Bros. vs. Standard Oil Co., 84 So., 653. INDEX. A. ABANDONMENT See, Temporary Cessation. Section Of legal title impossible 348 Effect of, is to re-invest title 331 Can not be claimed by lessor who has repudiated. .. .318 Distinguished 1 from forfeiture 23, 157 "What Is required to amount to 24, 120 Effect of 44 Failure to pay rental as 45 Failure to drill offset well 325 Failure to drill second well 57 Question of fact 307 Discussion of law of abandonment 310 ACCIDENT As affecting default in rental payment 63, 75 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Defect in wife's separate, where land not) hes separate property or homestead 98 Conclusiveness of Notary's certificate 130 Defective statement of venue in scilicet 184 ACTIONS In trespass to try title by lessee 15 Form of, for non-development 380 Ex contractu or ex delicto for drainage 49 For breach of covenant or; breach of condition 65, 73 Form, of, for failure to pay rentals under "unless" and "or" leases 129 Election of remedies 65, 74 To cancel and trespass to try title may be joined. ... 154 "When for specific performance ancjf when fo damages. .181 For injuries to cattle from cyanide pond 398 For forfeiture distinguished from cancellation for breach of contract 232, 233, 269 ADVERSE POSSESSION "Whether title based on, is marketable 381 Of mineral rights as affecting limitation 52 Of surface where minerals severed 52 118 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. ALTERATION Section Where duplicates held by both parties 87, 88 By filling in of blanks by lessee 88 By erasure and insertion in deed or lease 338 ARBITRATION Clause for, in lease cures uncertainty 41$ ASSIGNMENT See, Innocent Purchaser. "Without consent of landlord 34 Action for, ex contractu or ex delicto 49 Character and amount of proof neces-ary to show right to recover for 50 Whether lessee must protect against, where rentals are paid 56 DRILLING See Contractors, Definitions, Development. Implied obligation after failure of one well 33e Casing off slight production for better flow 76 Restrictions imposed by R. R. Commission 113 May not be compelled by specific performance 140 When, entends term 218 E. EJUSDEM GENERIS As applied to a grant of minerals 78 Election of remedies 74 EQUITABLE RELIEF See, Estoppel, Forfeit- ure, Injunction, Rescission, Restora- tion, Reformation, Specific Perform- ance. ESCROW When deed in, is effective 363 Can be, only where binding contract 164, 165 Garnishment of money in 423 Lease on homestead placed 1 in, may be retracted by wife 189 Effect of placing a contract in escrow 374 ESTOPPEL See, Surrender. By election of remedies 74 By acceptance of rentals. .. .90, 95, 104, 168, 213, 274, 341 Effect of lessor taking time to investigate before signing lease 145 Extension of time as constituting 371 Of owner, where his land s/)ld by another without his objection 180 Distinguished from waiver 370 Of lessor to claim time essential in payment of rentals 287 Of lessee, to assert his title must be based on affirm- ative acts, etc 349 Of lessor to claim lease terminated.. ..439 126 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. EVIDENCE Section Unproven bank deposit .slips 151 Of offer from another in suit for damages on account of fraud 186 In action for fraud, of similar acts 187 Uncontradicted, of interest witness is not conclusive. .195- Parol, not admissible to vary terms of contract 40? Extrinsic, to explain ambiguity 71 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS Right to lease or .sell land for oil purposes 108 EXHAUSTION See, Implied Obligations. Of discovery well does not affect vested 1 character of title 3 ? What is 408. EXPIRATION Of indeterminate lease F. FORFEITURE See, Definitions, Implied Obli- gations, Injunction, Rescission, Waiver. Rights after, for failure to pay rental 8- Distinguished from abandonment 23 As affected by temporary cessation 28 Lessor's declaration of, by conveyance of land 29 Waiver of, how may be done 30, 185, 274 Time as of essence of contract 4.! "Unless" and "or" lease distinguished. .44, 62, 128, 129, 157 Whether "unless" clause creates an option 6!) For failure to pay rentals 43, 45, 128, 234, 26 Where default in rental payment is caused by delay in mails 51 Where default in rental payment is caused by accident or mistake 63: Of assignment, governed by rules for, of lease 410 Is not abhorred by equity 64 "Conditions" and "covenants" distinguished G5, 73 Provision for, may be waived by lessor 269 Can not be based on ambiguous provision 71 Right of re-entry essential to, at common law 83 For commission of waste . 97 127 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. FORFEITURE Continued. Section May not be declared by one who has sold his interest.. 99 May not be declared 1 in absence of express provision. .103 Strict construction when forfeiture claimed for breach of condition subsequent 212 Waived if not claimed 213 Only grantor and heirs can take advantage of breach of condition subsequent 214 Purchaser of part of land leased may not claim, unless lease may be forfeited as to whole tract 222, 268 Can not be claimed as to any assignment if .some assignee pays sufficient rental to hold lease 227 Xiessor's transferee has no greater right to claim than lessor 231 Distinguished from cancellation for breach of con- tract 232, 233, 269 As affected by Soldiers' and 1 Sailors' Civil Relief Act.. 266 As to part of land only 268 As affected by past acceptance of overdue rentals. ... 274 Least favored, that based on delay in payment of money 275 Once fixed, can not be prevented 277 For failure to develop 94 Demand for performance prerequisite to, where estate held 1 on condition subsequent 430 G. GARNISHMENT Of money in escrow 423 GASOLINE See, Injunction. Extraction of, from gas as affecting liability of lessee. .162 GUARDIAN AND WARD Validity of statute authorizing lease beyond minority . .100 Right of guardian to execute lease 107 Necessity of order of court authorizing surface lease. .309 H. HOMESTEAD Lease on 21,189 Specific performance of contract to convey 163 Lease on, placed in escrow may be retracted 1 by wife.. 189 128 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. HUSBAND AND WIFE See, Escrow. Section Rights of community survivor in case of death or insanity 254 Delivery of deed from husband to wife not necessary. .261 I. IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS To minimize damages from acts of sub-lessee 11 To develop 26, 27, 33c, 56, 57, 69, 94, 198, 194, 230 To continue operations after discovery 33a To prevent drainage by offset wells 33b, 49, 56 To market 33d To drill after failure of one well 33e To drill, pay or surrender 47 To exhaust land of mineral 315 To develop after expiration 317 ^JUNCTION See, Lessee. When temporary, should be granted 39 When permanent, should 1 be granted 150 Against operations, in favor of adjacent land owner.. 105 Against spoliation of graveyard 125 Power of judge to issue, without bond 147 As between adverse lessees, when there is no produc- tion 148 Against continued drilling under lease 409 Against conjectural damages and abstract wrongs 149 Where possession taken with consent of owner, tem- porary injunction will not issue to transfer posses- sion 245 By lessor against operations, as extending time for- development 262 By lessee, against interference by lessor 314 To prevent interference with the taking of casing- head gas 332 To enforce forfeiture 420 INNOCENT PURCHASER Dry hole is not performance required to vest title.... 55 Right to rely on notary's certificate 130 Rights of, as affected by distinction between reserva- tion of mineral and of right to explore 235 Though purchaser has knowledge, he succeeds to rights of grantor who had not 240 Of community property, from surviving husband. .. .241 129 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. INNOCENT PURCHASER Continued. Section Want of delivery of deed as affecting rule 424 Whether one may be, of oil and gas lease 249, 252 Cancellation of pre-existing debt as consideration sup- porting plea of 427 Of lease may rely on statement in recorded instrument that consideration was paid 267 Of lease need not inquire as to payments by holder not of record 279 Action lies against party conveying to, where grantor has notice 321 Character of assignment requisite to support plea of.. 329 No innocent purchaser under altered instrument where title depends on alteration 340 J. JUDICIAL NOTICE Of discovery and valuableness of gas 354 L. L. R. A. ANNOTATIONS List of 9 LEASE See, Construction, Deeds, Description, Lessee, Lessor, Unilateral. Expiration of indeterminate 1 Subdivision of land covered by, as affecting royalties 14. 19, 3 On homestead 21 Construed favorably to lessor 25 Unilateral, annulled by conveyance of lessor before performance 29 Becomes vested by any discovery 31 May not cover roads 40 Binds lessee to drill, pay or surrender 47 Whether, includes production existing at date of lease. 60 Filent as to minerals is for surface only 82 Necessity to name all grantors in lease 291 Binds lessor, though erecuted in ignorance of terms.. 89 As authorizing payment of rental on part of land in event of assignment 96 Distinguished from license 173 Obligation of, under "unless" clause 44 130 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. LEASE Continued. Section Must be in writing 175 Right of lessee to remove property 204, 288 Payment of rentals is acceptance of, by lessee 219 Purchaser of part of land covered by, not entitled to forfeit unless whole lease forfeitable 222 Effect of "More or less" 247 Whether, confers legal or equitable title 252 Length of term never determinative of validity 273 LESSEE See Surrender. May lessee sublet without landlord's consent 346 Duty to minimize damages from acts of sub-lessee. ... 11 May, sue in trespass to try title? 15 Commingling of .product by 20 Is bound to drill, pay or surrender 47 Obligation to pay rentals 48 "Assigns" the "lease" 53 Is agent of lessor, as pertaining to accounting for royalties 3S.T Title not vested by completion of non-productive well. . 55 Rights in production existing at time Of lease 60 May not use leased premises for development of other premises 384 Conflicting obligations of, under contracts with adjoin- ing mineral interest owners 437 Duty of, to clear record after lease expires 443 Right of, to use surface 270 Determines whether production in paying quantities. .102 Duty to report production 109 Relative rights of coal lessee and oil lessee 426 Is, an "owner of land"? 119 Liability of, for gasoline extracted from gas 362 Right to remove property 204, 288 May do whatever necessary to make operation .suc- cessful 2? A Right to stimulate flow of oil which reduces gasoline production where lessee has contracted to deliver gas for gasoline purposes 334 Not obliged to carry operations beyond 1 point profitable to him 336 Right to stimulate flow of gas so as to reduce rents.. 422 LESSOR "Transfers" the "reversion" 53 Rights under surrender clause 48, 54, 59, 390 Rights in production existing at time of lease 60 Effect of, taking time to investigate before signing lease . .145 131 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. LESSOR Continued. Section May use premises so as not to interfere with opera- tions 399 Joint, as necessary party 171 Defaulting, may not complain of non-development. . . . 193, 202, 262 Transferee of, has no greater rights to claim forfeiture than 231 Prevention of operations by, as extending term 262 Amount of gas, may use for domestic purposes 280 LIENS See, Mortgages. Laborer's and' materal men's, on property of lessor and lessee 25& As excusing delay in development 364 LIFE TENANTS Who may drill for oil and who may not 93 LIMITATION See, Adverse Possession, Deeds. Whether title based on, is marketable 38 1 Adverse possession of mineral and surface rights.... 52 Forged or defective deed as affecting 223 When action to cancel for fraud is barred 253 When action to cancel for mistake is barred 253 Does not run against wife's suit to cancel lease on homestead 369 LIS-PENDENS Time from which, is notice 215 M. MAILS Delay in, causing default in rental payment 51 MARKETABLE TITLE See, Definitions. MARKETING Implied obligation for 33d 132 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. MEASURE OF DAMAGES Section For development by assignee under void assignment . .319 For failure to comply with agreement to make proper test 61 For injury to a leasehold 1 estate 404 For breach of contract to drill a well 376 For extraction of oil from land of another 77 In suit to establish resulting trust or to rescind for fraud 183 For prevention of drilling 426 For non-development in absence of drainage 194 For non-development where there is drainage 324 For breach of contract to lease 431 MISTAKE As affecting 1 default in rental payment 63, 75 Unilateral, as affecting right to rescind 121 MORTGAGES See, Liens. Lien of mortgagee, when superior to that of partner.. 411 Effect of, on royalties and rents 137 Mortgagee must pay rentals 406 N. NOTARY PUBLIC Conclusiveness of certificate of acknowledgment 130 Defective statement of venue in scilicet of ackloxvl- edgment 184 NOTICE See, Demand, Innocent Purchaser, Registra- tion. To proceed with development 1 When possession is not 72 Time from which Us pendens is 214 When possession is -16 I .-5 reference in a recorded deed notice? 242 What record is notice of 243 Is record of assignment by lessee notice to lessor?. . . .394 Upon whom, to proceed with development may be served 417 Time from which, of forfeiture is effective 355 133 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. O. OIL AND GAS Section Commingling of, by lessee 2( In paying quantities 35 Owner's right to production existing at time of lease. . 60 Are minerals and real property 80 May be severed 158 Escape of, permitted by pipe line company as basis of damage 397 Contract to deliver unproduced, must be in writing. . . .174 Rights of adjoining owners as to pumping oil 208 Ownership of fugitive 209 Amount of gas lessor may use for domestic purposes. .280 OWNER See, Parties, Royalties. Rights of adjacent, as to pumping oil 208 Of land, whether lessee is 119 Of fugitive oil 209 Of reversion is entitled to rent 251 Of mineral, not responsible for waste to surface by third person 278 Rights of, of mineral and, of surface compared 292 P. PARTIES TO ACTIONS Surface owners in boundary suit between mineral owners 387 Organization of joint stock company as affecting 133 Joint lessor as necessary party 171 Defect of, when may be availed of 172 Who are necessary 412 Where, in suits against trustees, beneficiary need not be joined 197 Co-tenants as necessary 264 Subsequent lessees as necessary 290 PARTITION Of rights in oil and gas in place 13, 106 Effect of, of leased land 18 PARTNERSHIPS When are individuals partners in oil and gas lease matters 40 1 Mining, discussed and 1 distinguished 146, 263 Corporation may not enter 263 134 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. PAYING QUANTITIES S'ection Defined 35 Lessee, when in good faith, may determine whether production is in 102 PAYMENT See, Definitions, Production, Rental, Royalties. PERFORMANCE See, Development, Discovery. Several tracts do not necessitate performance as if lease existed on each tract 335 Non-productive well vests no title 55 By any assignee vests title 31 By third party, sufficient 322 Failure in, is not excused by vis major 283 PERMITS Classification of land as affecting validity of 299 Relinquishment of, equivalent to abandonment 316 PIPE LINES See, Oil and Gas. Companies reg-ulated, made common carriers Ill May require indemnity bond 1 when transporting oil in litigation 112 Right of to store own oil to exclusion of public 363 PLEADING See, Actions, Election of Remedies, Restoration, Tender. May lessee sue in trespass to try title 15 Improvements in good faith in action to cancel 42 Character of action in suit for drainage 49 Essential allegations in suit for drainage 50 As determined by covenant or condition 73 When necessary to offer to restore 85, 86, 131 In rescission for inadequacy of consideration 118 Right of plaintiff to show real motive in giving lease. .143 In rescission for fraud 156. 191 In suit to compel specific performance of oral con- tract ^ _> 2 4 Necessity to allege fraud as a conclusion 33 135 TEXAS OIL ANI> GAS DECISIONS. POSSESSION Section When, is not constructive notice 72 When, is constructive notice 216 Taken with consent of owner will not be transferred by temporary injunction 245 Of minerals, how may be taken 52 POWERS To "sell" does not include, to "exchange" 126 PRACTICE See, Evidence. Submission of immaterial question harmless error.... 201 Bill of exception to order refusing continuance 188 Right to file trial amendment 257 PRINCIPAL AND AGENT Must authority of agent to sell landf be in writing?. . . .173 Disclosed and undisclosed principal in contract to sell. .179 PRODUCTION See, Development, Discovery, Performance. Casing off slight, for better flow 76 Where payment is to be made out of, what is required. 350 R. RAILROAD COMMISSION See Casing. Invested with power 110 Pipe line company may require indemnity bond when.. 112 Drilling restrictions 113 RECEIVERS When, may replace trustee 134 When, will be appointed ex parte 135 REFORMATION When, will be decreed 225 136 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. REGISTRATION See, Notice, Innocent Pur- chaser. Section- On and gas leases 2 Assignment of rentals 3 When is an instrument "filed"? 198 Priority of instruments filed contemporaneously 199 Which prevails as to remote grantee, prior filing or prior deed 239 First bona fide vendee to record deed gets title ....244 RELEASE See, Surrender. Placing instrument of, on record without lessor's knowledge 441 By president of corporation not paying franchise tax. .347 RENTALS^See, Banks, Forfeiture, Tender, Time. Assignment of, not to be recorded 3 Liability for 7, 260 Rights after forfeiture for failure to pay 8 Payment of, as excusing development 27, 56 Obligation to pay, runs with land 34 Payment of, at time provided is essential 43 Must be paid by mortgagee 406 Check is not cash in advance 46 Payment by check is good 1 if bank accepts 67, 141 Payment by dishonored check not good 226 Failure to pay, as ground for forfeiture 45, 128 Obligation of lessee to pay 48 Delay in mails causing default in payment of 51 Recoverability of. under "unless" and "or" lease.... 44, 62, 68 Accident or mistake in making payment 63, 75 Recoverability of, as affected by absence of surrender clause 68 Acceptance of, as an estoppel 90, 95, 104 When payable, where no time stipulated 91 Right to pay, on part of land only 96 May be paid by any party at interest 395, 227 Acceptance of, by lessor to detriment of third parties. .104 Deposit or tender into bank named protects lessor. . . .114 Need 1 not be tender where lessor repudiates contract. .127 Rights of mortgagee in 137 Lessee who assigns not liable for 34 Due on Sunday may be paid on Monday 138 Payment of, can not be shown by unproven bank de- po=it slip 151 Acceptance of, validates nudum pactitm 168 Liquidation of, by development 445 137 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. RENTALS Continued. Section Payment of, where depository bank has consolidated with another bank 196 Payment of, is acceptance by lessee 219 Right to pay, on part only, implied in right to assign. .228 Necessity of paying rental pendente lite 301 Right to pay quarterly rentals one year in advance. . . .320 Right to recover rentals paid 385 Right to pay, on one assigned part not applicable where several assignments converge in one holder.. 229 Payment of, to one co-tenant binds all in absence of demand 238 Owners of reversion are entitled to 251 Payment of by check must reach bank by due date. . . .271 Past acceptance of overdue, as waiving requirement to promptly pay 274 Payment of, after production ceases 281 RESCISSION See, Forfeiture, Pleading. Right of re-entry essential to, at common law 83 When necessary to offer to restore 85 For inadequacy of consideration 118, 142 On ground of mistake 121 On ground of misrepresentation 132, 192 Parol rescission of deed 372 Right of plaintiff to show real motive in giving lease. .143 On ground of fraud ^56, 191 On ground of concealment 373 Measure of damage where, is sought for fraud 183 Necessity of notice, where part performance 337 For breach of promise amounting to consideration. .. .190 On ground of false or fraudulent promise 191 On ground of insanity 205 On ground of duress 237 By vendor, on strength of superior title 312 RESERVATION Of minerals in deed 10, 116 Description necessary in 79 In deed, will be limited to use intended 139 Distinction fc-etween, of minerals and cf right to ex- plore, as affecting subsequent purchasers 235 Distinguished from exception, as bearing on disposi- tion of property on grantor's death 246 RESTORATION When necessary to restore 85, 131 Whether term divisible as affecting, of rentals 86 Where impossible to make 206 138 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. ROADS Section May not be leased 1 40 ROYALTIES See, Definitions, Lessor. Division of, after subdivision of land leased. .14, 19, 36, 222 Assignment of, by one holder as affecting remaining- interests 16 Payment of, accruing before transfer 17 Rights of mortgagee in 137 To be paid out of first "profits" do not require develop- ment at a loss 350 Transfer of, not interest in land 1 3 Lessee who assigns need 1 not pay 34 S. SEVERANCE See, Oil and Gas. SIGNATURE Omission of, of joint owner 5, 22 Binds grantor though ignorant of terms 89 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE To deliver product from or interest in mines 12 Will not lie to compel drilling 140 Will not lie to compel conveyance of homestead 163 When action is for, and when for damage-! 181 Plaintiff seeking, must not be guilty of bad faith or laches 202 Showing necessary for, of oral contract to convey. ... 224 STALE DEMAND When plea of, good 235 STATUTE OF FRAUDS See, Surrender. Parol proof of verbal surrender 358 Escrow lease not binding lessee invalid under 165 Agreement to deliver oil or gas to be produced within. .174 Lease must be in writing 175 Assignment of lease must be in writing 176 Contract for assignment must be in writing 177 Parol .agreement to convey or pay damages 368 Authority of agent to sell land 178 When oral contract to convey will be enforced 224 Requisites of contract under 438 139 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. STATUTES See, Statute of Frauds. Section Conservation law authorizing R. R. Commission to make orders 110 Pipe line companies regulated, made common carriers. .111 Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act 266 SUB-LESSEE See, Assignment. SUB LETTING Whether permissible 346 SURFACE May be used by lessee 436 Defined 117 Lease silent as to minerals is for 82 Owner of, may not complain of drilling 92 Rights of owner of, compared with rights of owner of minerals 292 SURRENDER, SURRENDER CLAUSE See, Release. General manager of coal company has no implied 1 au- thority to surrender 382 Supported by nominal consideration 37 May not be required by lessor 393 Rights of lessor under 54, 59 Kind of instrument necessary to accomplish surrender. 386 Absence of, as affecting recoverability of rentals 68 Lease may be surrendered orally 358 "Unless" clause as authorizing surrender 390 T. TAXATION When mineral interests may be taxed 400 TEMPORARY CESSATION Does not subject lease to forfeiture 28 Does not prevent title being vested 76 TENDER Refusal of, on one ground is waiver of others 327 Payment into court permits appellate court to render rather lhan remand 32S Mere statement of readiness to pay is not plea of. ...343 140 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. TERM Section Estoppel of lessor to claim, ended 439 Of indeterminate lease 1 Effect of surrender clause, at lessor's option 54, 59 Whether divisible, as requiring re-payment of rentals in action to cancel 86 Exclude first and include last day 101 When, may be extended by drilling 218 Whether extended by prevention of operations by lessor 262 Lease expires at end of, unless extended by production. 405 Excessive, does not affect validity 273 Necessary state of production or operations to extend, beyond stated 1 time 285 TIME See, Abandonment, Term. For drilling second well 445 Extension of, inures to benefit of various holders of lease 371 Is of essence of lease contract in absence of contrary stipulation 43 For payment of rental where no time stipulated 91 Where rental due date falls on Sunday, payment on Monday good 138 Effect of lessor taking, to investigate before signing lease 145 Extension of, for completion of well, strictly construed. 311 Time of "filing" instrument for record 198 Where, essential vis major will not excuse non per- formance 283 TITLE See, Deeds, Definitions, Innocent Purchaser, Marketable Title, Registration, Waiver of objections to abstract cf 435 Oil and gas lease is cloud upon 379 Not vested by completion of non-productive well 55 Meeting objections to, under contract to convey 376 Becomes vested by discovery 76 Whether lease confers legal or equitable 252 After acquired 255 Not affected by exhaustion of discovery well 32 TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE May lessee sue in 15 May be joined with action to cancel 154 141 TEXAS OIL AND GAS DECISIONS. TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES Section Tenure of trustee as affecting parties to actions 133 When trustee may be replaced by receiver 134 Resulting trust in favor of vendor where conspiracy to obtain land by fraud 182, 183 Where, in suits against trustees, beneficiary need not be joined 197 Conveyance establishing trust for handling of property strictly construed 281 U. UNILATERAL LEASES See, Consideration. Conveyance by lessor before performance is annullment 29 Illustrations 159 Whether usual lease is unilateral 250 V. VENUE Of suit to cancel lease confering interest in land 296 Of suit for value of severed minerals 360 VIS MAJOR Will not excuse non-performance where time essential. 2S3 As affecting diligence 286 W. WAIVER See, Tender. By lessor, as binding his transferee 231 Of objections to abstract 435 Of forfeiture, how may be done 30, 185, 274 Of breach distinguished from, of forfeiture 30 Of breach requires consideration 282 WASTE Severance and removal, when 81 As ground for forfeiture 97 .Mineral owner not responsible for, to surface by third person 278 Opening new and working old mine distinguished. ... 284 WILLS Distinguished from deed's 365 LAW LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY III I I I I I I I I II A 000 678 599 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. *V8 iSISl JJfHMMJ Form L9-Series 4939