Case Title: Endicott v. DeBarbieri

Citation: 189 Kan. 301, 369 P.2d 241

Docket Number: 42,460

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1962-03-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
189 Kan. 301 (1962)
369 P.2d 241
JEANNETTE H. ENDICOTT, et al., Appellees,
v.
LOUIS V. DeBARBIERI, et al., Appellants.
No. 42,460

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 3, 1962.
James W. Sargent, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Emmet A. Blaes, Roetzel Jochems, Robert G. Braden, J. Francis Hesse, Stanley E. Wisdom, Cecil E. Merkel, Harry L. Hobson, Bruce W. Zuercher, Terrance J. Muth, and Lawrence D. Klenda, all of Wichita, and Paul R. Wunsch and Charles H. Stewart, both of Kingman, were with him on the briefs for the appellants.
J. Richards Hunter, of Hutchinson, argued the cause, and D.C. Martindell, W.D.P. Carey, Harry H. Dunn, Edwin B. Brabets, Robert C. Martindell, William B. Swearer, Elwin F. Cabbage and John W. Feist, all of Hutchinson, were with him on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JACKSON, J.:
The plaintiffs-appellees filed the suit in the court below for the purpose of obtaining a decree holding a certain oil and gas lease upon a quarter section of land in Kingman county null and void and to have expired under the special terms of the lease. After pleadings had been filed, the parties entered into a written stipulation of facts upon which the court heard the case and decided in favor of the plaintiffs allowing them the relief prayed for in the petition.
We shall set forth the stipulation of facts upon which the case was tried.
STIPULATION OF FACTS
As noted above, the defendants have appealed the judgment for plaintiffs entered by the district court based upon the above stipulation of facts.
In urging the alleged error of the trial court, defendants to a large extent contend that the rules of implied covenants should have been applied by the district court as was done in the case of Fischer v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 156 Kan. 367, 133 P.2d 95. On the other hand, plaintiffs point out that the case at bar involved an expressed covenant and expressed contract of the parties and is controlled by the case of Hanscome v. Coppinger, 183 Kan. 623, 331 P.2d 590, which was referred to in the provisions of the instant oil and gas lease and which involved the same lessor and much of the same land as the instant case.
We must say now that we have trouble following the reasoning of the defendants since we construe the contract between the parties as controlling the duty to drill additional wells.
Although the parties argue at length over the meaning of the special provisions attached to the lease herein, it would seem that the crux of the question must turn upon the interpretation of one phrase of the contract. In the second paragraph of the above-quoted stipulations which were attached to the lease, we find the following:
The argument of the defendants is that the phrase "until the lease is fully developed" has nothing to do with the spacing of wells and regulations of the Corporation Commission, but may be taken to mean simply what it would mean under an implied covenant to drill.
We certainly cannot agree with such an argument; the provision of the contract is perfectly clear and gives the lessee one way in which to avoid the duty of drilling more wells. If defendants apply to the Corporation Commission and that body takes jurisdiction and it can then be shown that the lease has been fully developed under the orders of the commission, then defendants will have satisfied the contract.
All defendants offer in this regard is an agreement that the commission has never promulgated spacing regulations for the acreage concerned in this case. It is up to the defendants, as we understand the contract, to see that something is done in that regard if they wish to show full development under the regulations. Otherwise they have agreed to drill a new well each six months. This court is not in the habit of writing new contracts for the parties, if the contract entered into is clear and concise. (Hanscome v. Coppinger, supra.)
All other matters in the briefs have been fully considered, but we find no reason to extend this opinion. The order of the district court holding the within lease void except as to the ten acres around the gas well involved herein is affirmed. It is hereby so ordered.