The Kevin review. [volume] (Kevin, Mont.) 1922-1929, 1926-04-29
SUIT UPHELD BY COURT
in SOLBERG CASE

. SOlberg IN his action against tn
Sunburst Oil Gas company for fail
ure to release a forfeited oil and ga
lease on 800 acres of land in Tool
county, is affirmed by he suprem,
court in an opinion handed dowI
Thursday in which it disposes of tht
third appeal in this action.
The lease, which was executed By
Solberg to Gordon Campbell, July 10
1920, granted Campbell the right o.
drilling for oil on the land for z
period of 20 years, and contained a
provision that well must be com
menced within three years. but also
provided that Campbell should com.
mence drilling operations on the
Rocky Ridge dome wirhin eight
months.
This eight months period expired
March 10, 1921, but it was not until
April IA, 1921, that a well was actu-
ally spudded in on that dome. Solberg
claimed forfeiture of the lease and on
August IS, 1922, made written dc
mand for the clearing of the record
of the lease and on October z, 1922,
filed suit to compel the release OF
record and for damages
AT the first trial the district court
held the action to be in equity dis
charged the jury and rendered iudg
ment for defendant Upon the appeal
from this judgement the supreme
court sent the cose back for trial be-
fore a jury.
On re-trial the district court en-
tered judgement of non-suit on the
theory that no forfeiture OF lease had
been shown. and the supreme court
again reversed the lower court and
remanded the cause for a new trial,
the court in its opinion pointed out
hat a prima facie case of forfeiture
was created by the fact thot the first
entry of the drill in the ground took
place on April IA, 1921, after the ex-
piration of the eight months period
specified in the lease.
The cause was again tried in the
district court, this time resulting in
a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum
of $3.50 upon which judgement was
entered. From this judgement de-
fendant appealed to the supreme
court.
This last opinion, in which the
Judgment of the district court is
finally upheld, goes to considerable
-xtent into the law, the evidence and
of the various assign
nents of error put forth by the ap-
lelIant, covering % pages of type
written matter and delivered by As
'ociate Justice John A. Matthews.
In reply to the appellants claim
rat as it is not expressly provided
hat time shall be considered as the
.ssence of this contract and that for
are frowned on by the law,
he supreme court reversed the old
ule by holding that in the case of [
il and gas leases forfeiture is not r
ooked upon with disfavor but rath- (,
r favored when it clearly appears +
he Lessee has failed or neglected to t
operations within the G
me specified in the lease. {
The opinion holds that written
office of intention to declare for h
.iture was unnecessary under the $
w and the lease. s
1t holds that Solberg did not waive i
sfault by failure to act promptly p
r the purpose of preventing the Il
see, or his assignee, from proceed
g at great expense to develop the e
cid, as might have been the case
I'd the lessee been drilling upon
aintiff's own property. p
The court holds that it was not u
for plaintiff, in his claim .
r damages, to have set out in the v
to whom or for what price
could have sold lease on mis- land
ring the time his right was clouded !.
the Campbell lease, and that the :.
ct plaintiff lost his property by .
reclosure, through failure or refus-
of defendant to clear the record, -
,uld not defeat plintiff's right of ac- -
n for damages, but rather furnish -
ditional reason why damages 80
ould be awarded -
In reply to tn appellants claim of
rchase of the lease in good faith re
J opinion holds that defndant, in Oh
from Campbell lease con- pa
ming forfeiture clause, should. at Ri
peril, have ascertained whether or en-
forfeiture had been incurred. TO,
wi
Nm. Mansfield, formerly an oil of
~ III III i o