The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1916-01-23

new law as the opinion of the SUI
prema court was handed down on this
matter several years ago, and has
never been changed. This paper has
refused to be drawn into a long dis
cusson of the matter, but as another
paper has seen fit to only give one
side, and that a highly technical side,
we herewith present an opinion writ
ten by j. c. Stone of Muskogee, who
was on the winning side in the most
recent case, His opinion follows:
The attorneys for Brown and 9th
ers, who were successful in this case,
have no desire to discuss it in the
newspapers. However, on account Of
unjust criticism of the supreme court,
and because of the misinterpretation
of the decision by some people, | will
say this for publication.
The opinion does not announce the
doctrine which its critics profess to
see. There was involved in this case
lease given for a dollar, mere
nominal consideration. 1t provided for
a vel! within four months or thereai-
ter payment of 81 per acre per year
in advance, as delay money. The les
see reserved through the surrender
clause the right to avoid any payment,
and the right to avoid drilling by mere
ly rendering to the lessor formal re
lease. In this case the lessee neither
paid nor did he drill and being in de
fault, the lessor declared forfeiture,
both for failure to drill and for failure
ITO pay. The principal point throughout
the part of the opinion dealing with the
dollar consideration and the surrender
clause in short is this: That where an
oil lease has been executed without a
substantial consideration, and where
the lessee has not bound himself either
to pay or do any substantial thing, the
court will consider the development
provided for in the lease as the sole
consideration for the instrument, and
since the lessee by the surrender
clause reserves to himself the right to
surrender the lease at his option and
thereby avoid paying or drilling, the
lessor also may avoid the lease. But
if the lessor has accepted the rental
or delay money for a given period,
then by such acceptance of the delay
money, the lease is taken out of the
rule authorizing the lessor to avoid
it, until the expiration Of that period
for which rental was paid. What the
court may do in case where a sub
stantial bonus has been paid which
was intended to support all the cove
rants of the lease for the entire period
of the lease, was not involved in
Brown VS.. Wilson.
The court did not hold in this case
that a lease containing the surrender
clause is voidable at the option of the
lessor where supported by a substan-
tial consideration paid for the entire
term of the lease and for the privi-
lege of surrender No such point was
at issue. Under this decision any
good lawyer can easily draw a lease
that will protect any lessee who wants
to be fair. We are not concerned
about the unfair lessee.
note that it has been stated by a
correspondent in the Tulsa Democrat
that the conclusion reached by the SUI
preme court of Oklahoma is without
Oklahoma authority to support it.
am unable to agree with this conten-
ton. The decision is amply supported
by decisions in this and other states.
In truth, the great weight of authority
is on the side Of the opinion as an
nounced.
Those who are now protesting loud
est against tnlS opinion were largely
instrumental in establishing the rule
in Oklahoma, which governs Brown
against Wilson. For illustration, the
oil companies owning large acreage of
leases, in order to escape paying taxes
upon their leases upon an ad valorem
basis contend in prior case in the
supreme court that their leases did
not convey any interest in the realty,
but that such leases were mere op-
tions or licenses, and the court so held.
When the question arose in the su-
preme court as to whether or not coun-
ty court sales of oil and gas mining
lease were valid which had been sold
merely as personal property and not
according to the law for sales of an
interest in real estate, the oil fraterni-
ty contended and the court held that