Court Opinion

ID: 9827974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:58:53.725252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:40.669853
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees have filed a motion for rehearing herein, criticizing our original opinion wherein we stated: “Applying the above principles to the facts in this case, we conclude that waiver and estoppel have no application after an ‘unless’ lease has terminated as was the case herein.”
We did not intend to hold, by the above statement, that waiver and estoppel could under no circumstances or state of facts ever apply where an unless lease had terminated for failure to pay rentals within the time stated in the lease agreement, but only intended to hold that under the facts of this case waiver and estoppel did not apply.
It occurs to us that this entire cause must stand or fall, depending upon whether the oral agreement made between Guerra and Chancellor to accept past-due rentals was sufficient to revive an “unless” oil lease that had terminated by its own provisions.
The rentals were never paid to Guerra and accepted and retained by him, as was done in the case of Mitchell v. Simms (Tex.Com.App.) 63 S.W.(2d) 371, but were only paid to the depository, and promptly refused by Guerra. The oral agreement was void, because it was an attempt to create an oil and mineral lease on land by parol, and the tender of the consideration provided for in an oral sale of minerals or oil in place cannot create either waiver or estoppel.
We wish to correct some inaccurate statements of fact in our original opinion. Chancellor did not receive the lease in controversy by a partition of jointly owned leases between himself and Mrs. Dela-mater, but pursuant to an agreement between him and Mrs. Delamater to the effect that when he put up his share of the lease money he would be entitled to a half-interest in certain leases. We were also in error in stating that Chancellor stated to the Smiths and Gutshall that their leases were worthless. He only made this statement to Gutshall. These corrections, however, in no way affect our disposition of the case.
Appellees’ motion for a rehearing and their motion to certify will be overruled.