Court Opinion

ID: 9830165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:56:27.822424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:14.561882
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We were, we believe, in error in the statement in the opinion that there is a necessary conflict between the seventh and eighth findings of the jury, as set out in the original opinion, and accordingly withdraw that statement. We are also of the opinion that we were in error in the conclusion that the seventh finding is in conflict with or to be controlled by the sixth finding. The seventh finding was probably based on testimony that it was customary for a driller, in known formations, to “feel ahead with a rat tail,” a drill of smaller dimensions, so that if this testing should discover an oil sand a shoulder might be left above it for setting the casing. This practice was not followed in this instance. The Burk-Waggoner sand was encountered in this well at 1,625 feet or less. A depth of 1,635 feet had been rea&hed, according to another finding of the jury not stated in our original opinion, at the time when Pagenkopf directed the plaintiffs to drill on through such sand. The log of the 'offset well shows that the sand extended only to a depth of 1,634 feet or less. So that it is apparent that plaintiffs were already into and nearly, if not entirely, through this sand at the time Pagenkopf directed them to drill on through it. This direction then would not excuse the plaintiffs from the consequences of not having taken proper precautions before reaching the sand for the. setting of casing, in the event it should be desired to bring in a well on such sand.
So that we have reached the conclusion that the judgment may be sustained, if at all, only on the finding of defendant’s acceptance of the well. The law in reference to this phase of the case is not as clear as it might be. One essential element to the binding of a party to the contract by an acceptance of performance not fulfilling the terms thereof, is knowledge, at the time of the acceptance, of the defect in the performance. That element was not submitted here, but the evidence was amply sufficient to support a finding that Pagenkopf, at the time of the completion of the well, knew how it had been drilled and that this particular sand had been passed through in the manner stated. But the appellant’s chief insistence is that acceptance only operates as a waiver of strict compliance with the contract when the performance accepted was of some benefit to the party accepting'; that the doctrine is that one cannot accept the benefit of the other man’s performance and refuse to pay because of defective performance to which he made no objection on acceptance and in this connection states as a basis for the application of this proposition that the well as accepted by Pagenkopf was a junked.and worthless hole. But the evidence does not show that the hole was worthless at the time Pagenkopf accepted it. He evidently did not think so at the time, as he had casing set at the top and himself filled it with mud to preserve it from caving. The failure to *623leave an offset above tbe sand for tbe setting of tbe casing and tbe manner of plaintiffs’ drilling through the sand may- have bad nothing to do with the ultimate loss of tbe well. Tbe court and jury no doubt concluded that this well, at tbe time Pagenkopf accepted it, couid have still been brought in on tbe Burk-Waggoner sand that Pagenkopf so desired. This is to be inferred from tbe jury’s finding that tbe well was .drilled in substantial compliance with tbe contract.
Tbe appellants also suggest that in case of acceptance of defective performance tbe recovery should be on quantum meruit instead of on tbe contract. We do not understand tbe authorities to so bold. See authorities cited in original opinion.
Tbe motion fox rehearing is overruled.