Case Name: RANGER CISCO OIL CO. v. CONSOLIDATED OIL CO. OF TEXAS
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-02-16
Citations: 239 S.W. 648
Docket Number: No. 1295
Parties: RANGER CISCO OIL CO. v. CONSOLIDATED OIL CO. OF TEXAS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 239
Pages: 648–650

Head Matter:
RANGER CISCO OIL CO. v. CONSOLIDATED OIL CO. OF TEXAS.
(No. 1295.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
Feb. 16, 1922.
On the Merits, March 16, 1922.
Rehearing Denied April 13, 1922.)
1. Appeal and error c&wkey;387(3) — Failure to file appeal bond within proper time held grounds for dismissing appeal.
Where the term of court at which a case was tried ended February 5, 1921, and the appeal bond was filed April 1, 1921, it was not filed within the time limited by Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 2084, to confer jurisdiction on the appellate court, and the appeal must be dismissed.
On the Merits.
2. Evidence <&wkey;450(7) — Parol evidence held admissible concerning ambiguity in written contract.
In a suit for.breach of a contract to drill an oil well, where a written contract stated that the well was to be drilled 1,700 feet deep at a certain price per foot, and provided that another price should be paid for driEing through Eme, and though no depth was specified, oral testimony that the depth was to be 3,500 feet was admissible, since there was an ambiguity of the written contract as to the depth to which the drilling was to extend.
3. Contracts <&wkey;l70(l) — Parol testimony not admissible to show construction by parties of unambiguous written contract.
,Parol testimony is not admissible to show the construction placed on a written contract by the parties themselves where there is no ambiguity in the language of the instrument.
4. Mines and minerals <&wkey;109 — Refusal of peremptory instruction not error where evidence was conflicting as to meaning of a contract to drill oil well.
In a suit for breach of contract to drEl an oil weH, where there was positive evidence pro and con as to the interpretation the parties put on the contract as to the depth to be driEed to secure oil in paying quantities, a refusal of a peremptory instruction for defendant was not error.
5. Appeal and error &wkey;al002 — Verdict on conflicting evidence not disturbed.
A verdict in a case in which there is positive evidence pro and con as to the interpretation put by the parties on a contract as to the depth to be drilled to secure oil in paying quantities cannot be disturbed on appeal.
6. Damages &wkey;l20(3)— Party to a contract held entitled to recover amount expended thereon.
In a suit for breach of a contract to drill an oil well, where defendant by getting. tools and casing lodged in the well had made it impossible to drill to the depth contemplated, plaintiff was at least entitled to recover in damages the amount expended by him under the terms of the contract.
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; Geo. L. Davenport, Judge.
Action by the Consolidated Oil Company of Texas against the Ranger Cisco Oil Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Alexander & Baldwin, of Fort Worth, for appellant. .
Barker & Barker, of Cisco, for appellee.
writ o£ error dismissed tor want oí jurisdiction June 7, 1922.

Opinion:
HARPER, C. J.
This case was tried in Eastland county, Tex., at a term ending February 5,1921.
The records show the appeal bond (super-sedeas) to have been filed April 1, 1921; therefore not within the time fixed by Rev. Civ. Stat. (Y. S.) art. 2084, for its filing in order to confer jurisdiction upon this court. For that reason the appeal must be dismissed; and it is so ordered. Edens v. Cleaves (Tex. Civ. App.) 206 S. W. 722.
<&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Xtey-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<&wkey;For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes