Court Opinion

ID: 9829499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:21:48.154396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:02.015682
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Upon motion for rehearing we have concluded that the trial judge erred in not applying in this case the doctrine of commingling of assets. On a more deliberate consideration we have concluded that the record shows that it was impossible for the trial judge to determine with reasonable certainty the amount of oil illegally run from the Erigan and Quiros leases and commingled with oil from other leases. In our original opinion we were of the impression that the testimony of Gresham made it reasonably certain as to the amount of stolen oil run from these leases, but we are now of the opinion that his testimony shows that no accurate and complete records were kept and that his testimony was simply a guess. Gresham admitted there was no way to determine the amount of oil stolen. Not only were oils from different wells and different leases commingled, but oils of different specific gravities, and therefore of different values, were blended. It is now impossible to unscramble the commingled mass caused entirely by the willful misconduct of the defendant and its predecessors. It was the duty of the trial judge to resolve all doubts in favor of appellant.
The trial judge’s finding to the effect that ■ he could determine the amount of illegal oil run from the Erigan lease, with reasonable certainty, is not sustained by the evidence but is contrary to the evidence.'
Since appellee willfully and fraudulently commingled and confused the oil from the Erigan lease with the oils from the Quiros, Harrell and Sedwick leases and did not keep or destroyed all records which.would have disclosed how much oil was actually stolen from the Erigan lease, appellant, should be permitted to recover his ½6⅛ royalty of all oils run from the wells which were connected by secret pipes, with wells upon the Erigan lease. The price should be the intermediate price and the sums of money thus determined should bear interest *142at the legal rate ■ from the dates such royalty payments accrued.
This measure of damages must necessarily be adopted because it is impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty the oil produced from the Erigan lease. To prevent the possibility of injustice to the innocent .party, the ’ wrongdoer must pay double royalty on that unknown quantity of oil actually produced from the Quiros, Harrell and'- Sedwick leases. Gribben v. Carpenter, 323 Pa. 243, 185 A; 712; Stone v. Marshall Oil Co., 208 Pa. 85; 57 A. 183, 65 L.R.A. 218, 101 Am.St.Rep. 904; Benavides v. Benavides, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W. 566; Andrews v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 10 S.W.2d 707; Eaton v. Husted, 141 Tex. 349, 172 S.W.2d 493, 498; Johnson v. Hocker, Tex.Civ.App., 39 S.W. 406; Holloway Seed Co. v. Bank, 92 Tex. 187, 47 S.W. 95; Union Naval Stores v. United States, 240 U.S. 284, 36 S.Ct. 308, 60 L.Ed. 644; Hentz v. The Idaho, 93 U.S. 575, 23 LEd. 978; Kleppner v. Lemon, 197 Pa. 430, 47 A. 353.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded, with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in keeping with this opinion.