The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1916-01-21
Oil Lease Controversy.

ne BTOWn-N llSCn case discusses
many decisions of various states upon
the usual clauses found in oil and
gas leases. The principles announced
by the decision, however, are not
destructive of the oil interests IN Ok.
lahoma if properly viewed, and 1t is
unfair to our supreme court, even
though it may be popular among
some few lawyers of standing N the
state to publicly lambast them be-
cause they refuse to construe the law
as these lawyers want them 10 con
strue it. If our supreme court ever
becomes so subservient to these prom
inent lawyers in the state that we
ordinary lawyers cannot Get the ear
that body, a good many ordinary 'iti-
gants in the state might suffer great
injustice. But even the prominent
lawyers of the state must abide by
the decisions of that court in the
great majority of cases, and it is not
inspiring to the layman nor elcyating
to the legal profession to indulge in
public condemnation of the intelli-
gence of our highest court.
was interested on the same side
of the same question as Mr.. Ramsey
in other cases in the supreme and dis
tricf courts and in my judgment The
decision will work a great hardship
upon both the producers of oil and
the land owners; it will also encour-
age a certain class of lawyers in the
state, who have been unusually active
| in the past, to further annoy and
harass the producers Of oil who hap
pen to have used lease form with a
surrender clause.
The decision does not herald the
disaster Mr., Ramsey contends it will,
If l understand plain English, the
case consrues only the clauses before
it:
l. That a $1OO consideration is not
sufficient to support lease for ten
years and as much longer as oil and
gas is produced from the premises.
George Ramsey will admit that such
a holding is good law.
.. That a lease for ten years, or
as long as oil or gas is produced,
with a consideration of one dollar,
which provides that:
"The party of the second part
agrees to complete a well on said
premises within four months from the
date hereof, or pay at the rate of
eighty $500 dollars in advance for
each additional three months such
completion is delayed from the time
above mentioned for the completion
of such we'll until we'll is COM
peted."
is a concession on the part of the SUI
preme court to hold 'hat 81 is suf.
ficient to support the option for four
months without even commencing
well. The clause itself provides the
payment of the so-called rental to be
delay money on the completion of
well, which pre-supposes a commence
ment a well.
Can it be rightfully argued that
if one dollar is no consideration for
a ten-year lease that the supreme
court has gone too far in holding
that it is sufficient to support a four
months option to drill a well? The
lessor did not contract to delay ac-
tuaI operations more than four months.
but did agree that if such drilling was
in progress at the end Of that period
he would accept delay money on the
completion of the we'll Yet, the
court held upon this clause in the
lease:
"That the agreements on the part
of the lessee to complete a well on
the demised premises within four
months or pay for delay conferred
an option on the lessee to drill or
pay, and that a failure to do either
forfeited the lease at the option Of
the lessor"
Might not that court have gone
even further than il did md been
justified in its decision on this brsuch
of the case?
3. The court then holds that when
lease contains thu clause before
referred to with onlv 81 consider
alton, and in addition contains a
clause giving to the lessee rne right
at any time after the four months
to surrender the lease, the one dollar
being. only payment for the four
months option, this additional clause
has no consideration to support it and