Court Opinion

ID: 9831417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:05:32.133041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.641323
License: Public Domain

*857On Motion for Rehearing.
[4,5] Upon further consideration of this case, we have concluded that the appellee’s motion for a rehearing should he granted and the order of the trial court overruling the plea in abatement should be sustained upon the grounds hereinafter stated. The record shows that the plaintiff’s original petition was filed July 12, 1921; that on November 15th following defendant filed two separate pleadings. One was an answer to the merits, without reference to a plea in abatement; this answer was signed by two attorneys representing the defendant. The other was the plea in abatement, suggesting the nonjoinder of Hussey & Wheelan as parties to the suit; this plea was signed by only one of defendant’s attorneys. Which of these pleas was actually filed first does not appear, nor is there any other evidence than the date to indicate that they were filed at the same time. If the answer to the merits preceded the dilatory plea by any appreciable interval of time, it operated as a waiver of the objections incorporated in that plea, although both pleadings were filed on the same calendar day. Counsel for appellee, in his oral argument before this court and in the motion filed for a rehearing, charged that the plea in abatement was not filed till after the answer to the merits. The absence from the answer of any' reference to the plea in abatement is consistent with the truth of that statement Neither the statement of counsel in his oral argument, nor that contained in his brief, has been denied by counsel for the appellant. To say the least, the question as to which of these pleas was first filed is in doubt, and we are of the opinion that the doubt should be resolved in favor of the ruling of the trial court, who was in a better position .to know the facts.
[6, 7] Appellant assails the findings of the jury upon the issues of fact. It is insisted that the evidence did not support the finding that Dempsey acted in bad faith in drilling the well deeper over the objection of Torrans, and that the testimony that the well would produce 25 barrels per day for eight •years is too speculative to form the basis of a judgment for damages. If the testimony offered by the appellee be true, it tended strongly to show that Dempsey did act in bad faith in refusing to stop drilling at the point suggested by Torrans. The fact that there was testimony tending to show the contrary created only a conflict, which the jury alone could settle.
The finding relative to the probable future production of the well was founded upon the testimony of experienced oil men, who gave their opinions based upon their knowledge of that and the surrounding territory and the indications presented by that well. There was no other practicable method for showing the capacity of the well. While there is an element of speculation in their estimates, they are not for that reason to be wholly disregarded. The jury took what we regard as a safe estimate in reaching their conclusion.
[8] Appellant also complains that the judgment is excessive. A mathematical calculation based upon the findings of the jury will support the judgment rendered by the court. There was no reversible error in canceling the lease made by Colgin and wife to Torrans, because the undisputed facts show that that lease had practically expired by its own terms.
Appellant objected to the introduction of the contract between Torrans and Hussey & Wheelan and the Dempsey Oil Company, on the ground that it varied the contract set out in the pleadings of the plaintiff. In the plaintiff’s petition he described the very contract which was offered in evidence The objection was untenable.
The judgment is affirmed.