The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1918-10-12
iOklahoma Supreme Court
Upholds Surrender Clause
In Oklahoma Oil Lease


Upholds Surrender Clause
In Oklahoma Oil Lease
Oklahoma City, Okla, Oct. L.
The position OF the Supreme Courl
on the application OF the surrender
clause in oil and gas leases Is
changed somewhat from its hold
ING in former case in the decision
in the case OF the Northwestern On
and Gas Company vs.. Elmer l.. and
Mary f. Branine, handed down tins
week. The Judgment OF the hay
county district court IS reversed aho
the case remanded.
The syllabus in the present case
is the position Of the court and says
"Where cash bonus was paid
for an oil and gas lease which pro-
yided that lessee should commence
the drilling OF we'll within twelve
months from the date thereof or pay
a quarterly rental, and further pro-
yided that the lessee might at any
time upon the payment OF a further
sum OF 50 and all accrued liabilities
surrender the leased premises and
terminate all further Liabilities un-
der the lease; held, that the cash
bond supports each and all the Gov
enant, in the lease; and, held tur-
ther, that the presence OF surren-
der clause in said lease did not rem
der the same void for want OF mu-
t1ality nor confer on the lessor the
right to terminate said lease at
will.'
There was no disput but that the
terms OF the contract were being car
ried out. The Branines applied IN
the Kay county district court TO
cancel the lease and the court grant
ed the application. In reversing the
Judgment the high court holds that
the terms OF the contract were suiii-
cient and binding, and having been
accepted by the lessons, and were
being carried out, could not be an
nulled at the instance of the lessons
under the surrender clause in the
contract.
The courts decision in the noted
Brown-W Wilson case some months
ago. said that in that case there was
not mutuality OF contract. In that
case there was a contention that rem
tails were not paid when due. NO
such claim is offered in this case.
The court further discussing the
present case. SAID:
"The fact that the lease conferred
upon the lessee the option OF drilling
or paving or taking advantage OF the
surrender clause and terminating
the lease did not render same void
for lack of mutually. Options IN
leases granting to the lessee the priv
ilege Of purchasing the leased prem
ises are valid, and such an option
has been recognized in this State,
And no good reason can exist why
an option to terminate a lease OF the
character here involved when sup
ported bv Il consideration, should not
be upheld. Leases OF this character
have been before this court in a
number OF cases and their validity
has been recognized.
The decision in the Brown-Wil-
son case held that the 81 paid upon
the execution OF the lease supported
only the first term or the period IN
which a we'll should be commenced
and suppored no other condition OF
the lease. When this construction
was placed upon the contract therein
involved. it logically followed that
the remaining conditions OF the lease
were without consideration. The de
cision in that case was also based
upon the ground that lessees had
made default in the payment OF rem
tails according to the terms OF the
contract. and that the lessor had
the right, under the forfeiture
clause, to declare the lease at an end.
1t is urged that that portion OF the
opinion holding that the surrender
clause rendered the lease unilateral
and subject to be terminated at the
option Of the lessee was Ill conflict
with previous provisions OF this
court. If it be kept in mind that
the 81 paid upon the execution OF
the lease was held not to support
any condition OF the lease other than
the boring period there would be no
conflict. A number OF cases decld-
ed by this court have presented Tor
consideration leases wherein were
contained surrender clause, and
prior to Brown VS.. Wilson in every
instance leases have been upheld