Court Opinion

ID: 9827293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:23:07.943641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:28.541391
License: Public Domain

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants say on rehearing that we correctly held that “the measure of damages * * * is what would have been the value of the performance of the contract to the plaintiff”; but that we failed to apply such measure of damages to the jury’s finding that, if a well had been drilled on the Campbell lease, it would not have produced gas in “paying quantities.” This issue did not submit the value of the performance to plaintiff, but whether such a well would produce gas in paying quantities for all the owners, above the costs of operation. The definition given of “paying quantities” so instructed the jury. The contract provided that plaintiff was to pay only one-half of such costs. The jury also found in answer to the next succeeding question that the value of the gas which would have been produced from “a well on the Campbell lease” for the period involved would have been $1,425; and there is no w;ay of telling whether this valuation was less costs of operation. If it can be held that these two answers of the jury are not conflicting, then the jury did not find what one-half the costs of operations would have been. For these reasons, and as stated in our original opinion, “because of the cpn-fusion disclosed by the record as to the proper measure of damages,” the cause was remanded for another trial. The motion for a rehearing will be overruled.
Overruled,