Court Opinion

ID: 9833807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:03:00.059513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.959057
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Our opinion on the. motion for rehearing contains some dicta as to matters not involved in the facts of this case. .We withdraw what we said concerning such matters, but in all other respects reaffirm what we said in our opinion on motion for rehearing, as follows:
Appellees insist that we erred in holding that the agreement by appellant to drill a well, under the conditions stipulated in the lease, as set out in our findings of fact herein, was a valuable consideration for such lease, for the reason that a promise to do a thing which the promisor is already under legal obligation to do does not constitute a. valuable consideration.
[8] This is a sound proposition of law. On the other hand, it is equally as well settled that a promise to do something that the promisor was not legally bound to do, or to refrain from doing something that he had a legal right to do, is a sufficient consideration to support a contract.
[9] This brings us to the consideration oN the question: Would the lessee have been legally bound to do what he agreed to do in reference to an offset well, if the stipulation in reference thereto had been omitted from the lease? When the thing impliedly to be done is of uncertain nature, an express agreement in reference to same will exclude an implied covenant to do something else, though it may be that subsequent events may show that such other thing is reasonable. “Where the parties have expressly agreed on what shall be done, there is no room for implication for anything not so stipulated for.” 18 R. C. L. 1213. On the other hand, when a party has expressly promised to do a thing, he will not be relieved from performance by showing that such' performance would work a hardship on him.
AVhat would the law imply that a lessee in an oil lease should do to protect the leased premises from drainage by wells on adjacent lands? That which would be reasonably necessary. What would be reasonably necessary would depend upon the circumstances of each case as the future might show. Must the well on the adjoining premises be in 100 feet of the leased premises, or in 500 feet? Is such well 200 feet or 500 feet deep ? Does it produce 3 barrels per day or 30,000 barrels? Is the oil of high grade or low grade? Is the *358market value of oil 10 cents per barrel, as it has been in this state, or $3.50 per barrel as high grade oil now “is? Certainly the lessee would not be under an implied obligation to protect the leased premises by an offset well, unless it reasonably, appeared that the stratum in which oil was found on the adjoining premises would produce oil in paying quantities. Any or all of the facts referred to would be proper for the consideration of a jury, in determining the ultimate fact as to whether the oil-bearing stratum was capable of producing oil in paying quantities.
• The parties to the lease contract here under consideration have foreclosed all inquiry as to those matters by expressly stipulating what kind of a well on adjacent land and where located would place the lessee under legal obligation to drill on the leased premises. We cannot say as a matter of law that the lessee would have been bound to do what he covenanted to do, under the circumstances mentioned. Having covenanted to do what he may not under an implied covenant have been legally bound to-do, in the absence of such covenant, the same is a sufficient consideration to support the lease, independ•ent of the recited cash consideration, which was not paid.']
The cases at Aycock v. Oil Co., 210 S. W. 848, and Guffey v. Oliver, 79 S. W. 884, are not applicable to the facts of this case.
[10] The payment of the rental before the expiration of one year from the daté of the lease extended the option for six months. The appellant having seasonably tendered the next rental, and the same having been refused by appellees, he was thereby released from continuing to tender the rentals. However, as we hold the lease to be valid, this does not release him from the payment of all rentals due to this date.
We reverse and render judgment for appellant with reference to conditions as shown to exist at the time of the trial hereof, without prejudice to the rights of appellees under conditions which may hereafter exist.
Motion overruled.