Dille v. Carter Oil Co.

192 F.2d 791, 1 Oil & Gas Rep. 24, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3787
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedOctober 31, 1951
Docket4197_1
StatusPublished

This text of 192 F.2d 791 (Dille v. Carter Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dille v. Carter Oil Co., 192 F.2d 791, 1 Oil & Gas Rep. 24, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3787 (10th Cir. 1951).

Opinion

MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

This action was commenced by the Carter Oil Company against Glen S. Dille, W. A. Delaney, Jr. and the Zephyr Drilling Company, for a declaration of the rights of the parties under a contract entered into between Carter, Delaney and Zephyr. When Delaney and Zephyr cross-claimed against codefendant Dille, and Dille stated in open court that he claimed no interest adverse to Carter, the trial court dismissed the action for lack of diversity of citizenship between the parties to the controversy. Delaney and Zephyr appealed, and this court reversed, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction of the declaratory action. Delaney v. Carter Oil Co., 10 Cir., 174 F.2d 314. Dille then filed his answers to the respective cross-claims of Delaney and Zephyr and counterclaimed against them. His counterclaim is based upon an alleged oral agreement, whereby, in exchange for scientific and geological data, he was to receive an interest in the oil and gas leases, covered by the contract between Carter, Delaney and Zephyr. And, to enforce that alleged contract, he sought to impress a constructive trust upon the interest held by Zephyr and Delaney. Upon a trial of the case on the merits, the court held that Dille had no right, title or interest in the properties, and this is an appeal from that judgment. The ultimate question is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the court.

On March 5, 1946, Carter, Delaney and Zephyr entered into a written contract, by the terms of which Carter acquired a 60 per cent interest in a block of oil and gas leases located in Garvin County, Oklahoma, the record title to which was held by Delaney and Zephyr. In consideration therefor, Carter agreed to pay the sum of $25,000 and to drill a well at its expense to a designated depth. In the event the test well was a producer, the contract set out the rights, duties and obligations of the parties as to future development. Pursuant to the contract, Carter completed a producing well on the leases in October 1946. During the period from the completion of this test well and the commencement of this suit in May 1948, fifteen producing wells and four dry holes had been drilled, and three wells were being drilled. Carter brought this declaratory action when it learned that Dille was claiming some interest in the leases. Since Dille now claims no interest in the undivided 60 per cent interest held by Carter under the contract, the issue here is between Dille and his co-defendants, Zephyr and Delaney, involving the ownership of the undivided 40 per cent interest retained by them.

The testimony of Dille, in support of his alleged oral agreement with Zephyr and Delaney, is as follows: Dille, a geologist-residing in Tulsa, Oklahoma, while working for the Texas Company in 1936, be *793 came interested in the geological formation of the Arbuckle Mountains in Southern Oklahoma, and spent considerable time in that area. He also studied published works in connection with the geological structures in that vicinity. This work took him to Garvin County, where he was attempting to trace a fault line in the structure, and he came upon a certain map prepared by a Mr. Becker, showing the location of the fault line. In addition to this information, he obtained data concerning subsurface formations from samples and well logs from the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma, and studied photographs of aerial surveys and data from the United States Geological Survey. Dille left the Texas Company in 1936, and became a consulting geologist, accepting professional employment from various persons and firms engaged in the business of exploring for oil and gas. He continued to study the geological data on the structure in Garvin County, and in 1939, decided to assemble a block of oil and gas leases there, later known as the Katie area. He arranged to have Don Matthews, a Tulsa lease broker, check the acreage, and learned that most of it was already under five and ten year oil and gas leases to the Lee Drilling Company. When the records were checked again in 1941 by Matthews, the leases were still in effect, but upon further examination in 1943, it was found that a number of the leases had been released. At that time, Dille obtained a geological map of the area, referred to- as as the Heatherington Map, from the Lee Drilling Company, and also learned that the Drilling Company had been unable to promote the block. Dille stated that in all his research, he had found no geologist who had concluded the important geological factor determined by him that in one place in the area, the lower Pontotoc formation protruded up through the upper Pontotoc.

In 1938, Dille became acquainted with S. C. Canary, an officer of the Zephyr Drilling Company, and from that time until 1944, did considerable work for Zephyr, for which he was usually paid a fee of $30 a day plus expenses while on trips. In 1944, Canary asked Dille to accompany him on a trip to Southern Oklahoma, for the purpose of looking for acreage to develop. When Canary found nothing to interest him, Dille told him of the considerable amount of work he had done in the Katie area in Gar-vin County, and explained to him why he thought the structure was productive; he told him of the various maps and data he had assembled, and suggested that Zephyr join him and Matthews in procuring a block of oil and gas leases; he proposed that Zephyr pay for the leases and he and Matthews would promote and sell the block. On the return trip to Tulsa, Canary suggested that Dille make a map showing the general picture of the development in that country, which he later did, covering an area of 186 square miles. Dille was paid his usual fee by Zephyr for this trip to Southern Oklahoma, and for the subsequent preparation of the map.

On May 31, 1944, Canary told Dille that Zephyr would go in on the deal, and that when Zephyr had recovered the amount spent by it to assemble the block, they would own it “fifty-fifty”. Matthews was requested to start taking the leases, and after taking three, he made arrangements with a lease broker in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, to obtain the remainder. The leases were sent to a bank in Tulsa for Zephyr with draft attached. Some time later, Dille again went to- Southern Oklahoma with Canary, to do some geological work on a well being drilled by Delaney near Ada, Oklahoma, in which Zephyr owned a one-half interest. On that trip, they stopped in Pauls Valley and made arrangements for a firm of attorneys to examine the title to the oil and gas leases that were taken in the Katie area, and also- talked with the lease broker there about the progress in procuring the leases. Canary remarked that it was costing more than he had anticipated to get the block of leases, and asked Dille if he would object to having Delaney in on the deal on the basis of one-third interest to each. Dille- said that would be all right with him, and later in the day Canary told Delaney about the deal. Delaney said he would come into it if his geologist, Byron Sledge, would approve it. Sledge and Dille left immediately for the Katie area, and when Sledge subsequently made a favorable report, Delaney agreed to join the venture. He told Canary he had a lease *794 man in Ada that he would put on the job in order to get the leases faster. The leases were taken in the name of Zephyr and Delaney.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ohio Oil Co. v. Sharp
135 F.2d 303 (Tenth Circuit, 1943)
Kasishke v. Baker
146 F.2d 113 (Tenth Circuit, 1944)
Kasishke v. Keppler
158 F.2d 809 (Tenth Circuit, 1947)
Delaney v. Carter Oil Co.
174 F.2d 314 (Tenth Circuit, 1949)
Ballard v. Claude Drilling Co.
88 P.2d 1021 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 F.2d 791, 1 Oil & Gas Rep. 24, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dille-v-carter-oil-co-ca10-1951.