Texas Co. v. Davis
255 S.W. 601 · Texas Supreme Court · 1923
Facts
A lease agreement, referred to as a grant, included a payment clause requiring annual payments of $10. This clause allowed the lessee to postpone drilling operations beyond an initial two-year period, as failure to commence drilling within two years or prosecute it diligently would otherwise annul the grant. The land was subsequently found to contain oil or gas in paying quantities after a well was commenced and completed. A dispute arose regarding the interpretation of this payment clause, with the defendants in error insisting that the completion of a producing well, without further action, continued the grant in force for a full 25-year term.
Procedural history
The defendants in error filed a motion for rehearing and supporting arguments, challenging the correctness of the court's previous conclusion. The court is now clarifying its original opinion and overruling the motion for rehearing.
Issue
Did the completion of a producing well, without anything more, continue the grant in force for the full 25-year term, despite the existence of a payment clause for annual $10 payments?
Holding
No, the court held that the payment clause was intended only to enable the lessee to postpone drilling after two years, not to continue the grant for 25 years after a producing well was completed. Once a well was duly commenced and completed, the payment clause became inoperative.
Rule
A payment clause in a lease, providing for annual payments, is inserted not to change the estate granted but merely to enable the lessee to postpone drilling after an initial period. Its purposes include securing an option to delay development and clarifying that rentals are not required after a well is sunk and deemed unprofitable. Such a clause is not intended to defeat the dominant purpose of the contract, which is the production of minerals for mutual profit. Therefore, once a well is duly commenced and completed, the payment clause becomes inoperative, as its function of authorizing delay in drilling has been fulfilled.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.