Court Opinion

ID: 9552862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:18:28.429972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:14.521132
License: Public Domain

LUTTRELL, V.C.J.
(dissenting in part). I dissent to that part of the opinion allowing Champlin costs expended in drilling the nonproductive well. The cost of the drilling of such well conferred no benefit upon the property, and added no value thereto. I am unable to see how Champlin is entitled to offset the cost of drilling a dry hole against the value of the oil and gas for which it is liable. In allowing the actual cost of drilling productive wells, such allowance is upon the theory that the property has been benefited to the extent of such drilling costs. Here the dry hole added nothing to the value, and, in my opinion, the cost thereof should not be allowed as an offset.