Case Name: UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. v. MILES et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1933-07-07
Citations: 152 So. 71
Docket Number: No. 32133
Parties: UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. v. MILES et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter
Volume: 152
Pages: 71–74

Head Matter:
178 La. 520
UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. v. MILES et al.
No. 32133.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
July 7, 1933.
On Rehearing Jan. 2, 1934.
Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellant.
Munholland & Munholland, of Monroe, for appellees.

Opinion:
LAND, Justice.
On July 15,1926, thp defendants Mrs. Anna P. Miles, Edward H. Myrick, Wm. B. Myrick, Mrs. L. R. Harris, Jr., and John R. Myrick, leased to the Louisiana Petroleum Corporation certain lands in Richland parish for the purpose of developing same for minerals.
On October 8, 1926, the Louisiana Petroleum Corporation assigned this lease to the Gulf Refining Company of Louisiana. That company, October 29, 1927, assigned the lease to the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana, and, on September 15, 1931, the latter company assigned to plaintiff, United Gas Public Service Company, "the natural gas rights only" on the land originally leased. Tr. vol. 2, p. 115.
On August 31,1929, the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana instituted suit in the Fifth district court for the parish of Richland against the defendants, alleging that it owned the lease in question; that on May 3,1929, it 'began drilling a well, Myrick No. 1, which was drilled to a depth of 2,726 feet and abandoned as dry; and that on July 14, 1929, it began drilling a second well, Myrick No. 2, in a field inclosed by a fence, and continued to drill same without interruption until August 21, 1929.
The Palmer Corporation of Louisiana further alleged that, on the above date, the defendants locked the gate to the field in which Myrick No. 2 was being drilled, ordered the drilling crew to desist from further drilling operations, and caused the arrest of the crew on charges of trespass.
It was further alleged by the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana that, at the time it was illegally shut out from this well, the drilling had reached a point where it was dangerous to the well itself and to the surrounding territory; that, for this reason, the department of conservation took the well over and set 6-inch easing, and filled it with mud and capped it; and that the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana suffered loss in the sum of $2,500, growing out of the expense of the shutdown and the starting up again, and the extra cost incurred by the department of conservation in setting the 6-inch casing, filling the hole with mud, and capping the well.
The Palmer Corporation of Louisiana further alleged that its lease on defendants' land "is a valid, legal, and subsisting lease," and that an injunction was necessary to protect its rights in the premises.
In the alternative, it was alleged by the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana that, if the court should hold thát it had no right to go ahead and complete Myrick No. 2, then, in that event, defendants were liable in solido to that corporation in the sum of $17,400 expended in drilling the well.
The prayer of the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana was for judgment in favor of petitioner "decreeing your petitioner's lease on the lands herein described to be a valid, legal, and subsisting lease; decreeing that your petitioner has the right to go ahead and complete the drilling of the well described as Myrick No. 2, and for that purpose to go in and upon the lands described in the said lease as may be necessary; giving petitioner judgment against the said defendants in solido in the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500.00) Dollars; and forever enjoining and prohibiting them from interfering with your petitioner in the drilling of the well now being drilled, referred to herein as Myrick No. 2, and in the drilling of any other well or wells that it may be necessary to drill on the said lands in order to produce the recoverable gas therefrom."
In the alternative, the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana prayed "that, if the court should find that your petitioner does not have the right to complete the well now being drilled, and referred to as Myrick No. 2, then, and in that event, it have judgment against defend 'ants herein in solido in the sum of Seventeen Thousand, Four Hundred ($11,400.00) Dollars."
Defendants in the suit of the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana pleaded an exception 'of no right or cause of action, and tendered the plea that the lease had expired by the lapse of its own term of three years running from July 15, 1926, terming such defense a plea of prescription of three years.
Judgment was rendered in the court below in favor of defendants and against the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana, sustaining the plea of prescription of three years, and thereby terminating the lease, and dismissing petitioner's suit at its costs. This judgment is of date February 16, 1931. On appeal to this court by the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed February 29, 1932/ and rehearing denied March 30, 1932. See Palmer Corporation of Louisiana v. Miles et al., 174 La. 470, 141 So. 31.
In the present suit of the United Gas Public Service Company against these same defendants, petitioner, as the assignee of the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana, alleges that it acquired under the assignment of the lease the right of its assignor under same "at any time to remove all machinery and fixtures placed on said premises, including the right to draw and remove casing," and seeks to enjoin defendants from interfering with its employees in drawing and removing the casing from Myrick No. 2 on the leased premises.
The prayer of plaintiff's petition is that plaintiff "be decreed to be the owner of the casing in said well with the right to draw and remove the same from the leased premises," and that defendants be enjoined from interfering with plaintiff in the exercise of this right
In the alternative, plaintiff prays that it "have judgment against the defendants in solido for the full sum of Seventeen Thousand Pour Hundred ($17,400.00) Dollars, with legal interest thereon from judicial demand," this sum, as alleged being the amount expended by the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana in drilling Myrick No. 2, including the value of the casing and the cost of placing same.
Defendants have pleaded the judgment rendered in their favor in the suit of the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana against these same defendants as res adjudicata, and also that plaintiff's petition fails to disclose a cause or right of action.
Prom a judgment sustaining both of these pleas, and dismissing plaintiff's demand, plaintiff has appealed.
. Prom the above recital of the issues involved in the present suit against these defendants, and in the former suit of the Palmer Corporation against the same defendants, it is clear that the right to draw and remove the casing from Myrick No. 2 was not an issue made in the former suit. The plea of res adjudicata, therefore, is not good and cannot prevail. •
But, in our opinion, the plea of no right or cause of action is well made; and must be sustained, since plaintiff did not acquire under its assignment all of the rights vested in the Palmer Corporation of Louisiana under its lease, but "the natural gas rights only," without any mention being made whatever of machinery and fixtures, such as casings in wells.
Por the same reason, plaintiff's petition fails to disclose a cause or right of action in its alternative demand for the recovery of the $17,400, the amount stated in the petition to have been expended by the Palmer Corporation in drilling Myrick No. 2, and which is alleged to include the value of the casing and the cost of placing same.
The judgment appealed from is therefore annulled and reversed. It is now ordered that the plea of res adjudicata be overruled, that the plea of no right or cause of action be sustained, and that plaintiff's suit be dismissed at its costs.