Jackson v. Moore

1920 OK 262, 191 P. 590, 79 Okla. 59, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 23
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 13, 1920
Docket10901
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 1920 OK 262 (Jackson v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jackson v. Moore, 1920 OK 262, 191 P. 590, 79 Okla. 59, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 23 (Okla. 1920).

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

This is an appeal from the district court of Pawnee county, Hon. Redmond S. Cole, Judge.

On May 10, 1919, the plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs below, commenced an action against the defendants in error, who were defendants below, to cancel a certain oil and gas lease granted by the defendants Moore to' the defendant Twin State Oil Company, covering the S. % of the N. E. ^ of section 12, twp. 20 N., range 7 east, in Pawnee county, and for a receiver and for an ac-counti’ig of all the oil and gas products on said land, and to recover the proceeds arising from the sale of the same, and for a decree of confirmation of a certain oil and gas lease from the defendants Moore to the plaintiff Jackson of a prior date and covering said *60 land, and for an injunction against the defendants enjoining them from asserting or claiming any right, title, or interest in said land for the oil and gas produced therefrom adverse to the plaintiffs, and to have all other equitable relief to which the plaintiffs might be entitled.

From a judgment of the court sustaining the separate demurrers of the defendants to the plaintiffs’ petition and dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit, with prejudice, the plaintiffs have regularly commenced this proceeding in error by filing petition in error with case-made attached, their assignments of error being;

“1. The said trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers of the said defendants in error to the plaintiffs in error’s petition.
“2. Said court erred in rendering judgment for the defendants in error on the petition of the plaintiffs in error filed in said court.”'

The material allegations of the plaintiffs’ petition show, in substance, that on the 12th day of October, 1917, defendants Moore executed to the plaintiff S. G. Jackson an oil and gas mining lease covering the land mentioned for a period of five years for a bonus of $1,200, to be delivered to said Jackson on the 28th day of February, 1918, on the payment of said sum, and that said sum was paid, the lease delivered, and recorded in Book 26 of the Mise. Record of said county at page 76, and that thereafter, on March 6th, the said plaintiff assigned an undivided one-fourth interest in the east 40 acres to M. J. Hyland, which assignment was regularly recorded in the office of the county clerk in said county, and that on the said date the said S. G. Jackson assigned an undivided one-half interest in said 40 acres to B. L. Foerster, which assignment was duly recorded in the office of the county clerk of said county. Copies of said lease and assignments were made exhibits' to the plaintiffs’ petition, marked “A,” “B,” and “C”.

Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the plaintiffs’ petition were as follows:

4.“Plaintiffs further allege that by the terms and conditions of said lease, ‘if no well be commenced on said land on or before the 1st day of March, 1918, the lessee on or before said date shall pay or tender to the lessor, or deposit to the lessor’s credit in the First State Bank, at Terlton, Oklahoma, or its successors, which shall continue as the depository regardless of changes in the ownership of said land, the sum of sixty (60) dollars a month in advance till royalty exceeds rental, which shall operate as rental for one month until a well is commenced on said .premises.’ That no well was commenced on said land on or before the 1st day of March, 1918, and that in pursuance to the terms and conditions of said lease the plaintiff, S. G. Jackson, on the 28th day of February, 1918, paid to the defendants, A. J. Moore and Maggie Moore, sixty (60) dollars; the rental provided for in the terms of said lease, and that the rentals provided for in said oil and gas lease have all been paid as in said oil and gas lease provided and all of the terms and conditions of said oil and gas lease have been fully performed and complied with by the said plaintiffs, and that said lease at all times herein mentioned from the 28th day of February, 191S, to this date has been and is in full force and effect, a binding and subsisting lease in favor of the plaintiffs herein on the land of the said defendants herein described.”

5. “Plaintiffs further allege that on the 3rd day of June, 1918, the defendants, A. J. Moore and Maggie Moore, made, executed and delivered to the Twin State Oil Company, a corporation, their oil and gas lease on the said land herein described and on which they had heretofore given an oil and gas lease to the plaintiff S. G. Jackson, as herein set forth, in disregard and violation of the rights of the plaintiffs acquired by the lease given to the said S. G. Jackson as herein pleaded. That in the leasing of the said land to the Twin State Oil Company, the said defendants, A. J. Moore and Maggie Moore, executed their said lease on the said land as Andrew J. Moore and Lydia M. Moore; the plaintiffs allege that Andrew J. Moore and Lydia M. Moore, lessors in said lease, are "'the same and identical persons as A. J. Moore and Maggie Moore, the defendants herein. That the said lease to the Twin State Oil Company was filed for record by the Twin State Oil Company on the 14th day of June, 1918, and recorded in Book 5 of Oil and Gas Leases at page 98 in the office of the county clerk of Pawnee county, state of Oklahoma. A true and correct copy of said lease with all indorsements thereon is hereto attached, marked ‘Exhibit D,’ and made a part of this petition.”

6. “Plaintiffs allege that the Twin State Oil Company, a corporation, at the time of the taking and receiving of the said lease from the said defendants, A. J. Moore and Maggie Moore, had actual knowledge as well as constructive knowledge, by reason of the recording of the lease of the said S. G. Jackson’s, of the said lease.”

7. “Plaintiffs allege that in the payment of the rentals provided in said lease time of the payment of said rentals was not made the essence thereof, and in the transaction between S. G. Jackson and the defendants, A. J. Moore and Maggie Moore, leading up to the delivery of the said lease on the 28th day of February, 1918, and in payment of the rental thereafter due under the terms of said lease *61 the defendants, A. J. Moore and Maggie Moore, led these plaintiffs to believe that the said defendants. A. J. Moore and Maggie Moore, did not regard time of the payment any part of the consideration for said lease and for the rentals therein provided as of the essence of said lease.”

8. “That the said S. G. Jackson at the time of the execution of said lease, to wit: on the 12th day of October, 1917, obtained an option for the purchase of said lease for a period of sixty days; the said lease was for .the consideration of twelve hundred ($1,200.00) dollars and said lease was deposited in escrow in the First State Bank at Terlton, Oklahoma, and one hundred ($100.00) dollars in said lease of $1,200.00 was on the above date paid to the said defendants, A. J. Mooi'e and Maggie Moore, leaving a balance due on said lease in the •sum of eleven hundred ($1,100.00) dollars to be paid in sixty days thereafter. That on the 18th day of December, 1917, an extension agreement was entered into for a period of thirty days, wherein and whereby the said S. G. Jackson paid one hundred ($100 00) •dollars to apply on the balance of the purchase price of said lease and was to pay the balance of $1,000.00 in thirty days.

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

Related

Seaborn v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. of New York
1952 OK 249 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1952)
Fenstermacher v. Woodard
1944 OK 263 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1944)
Moseley v. Smith
1935 OK 821 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hutchison
1926 OK 366 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Traber v. House
1925 OK 729 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Myers v. Harness
1925 OK 373 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Myers v. Purdy
1925 OK 222 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Avery v. Goodrich
1924 OK 842 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Security Nat. Bank of Tulsa v. Geck
1923 OK 589 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Jackson v. Twin State Oil Co.
1923 OK 542 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Lauer v. Clark
1921 OK 389 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Nale v. Herstein
1921 OK 398 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
White v. Tullahassee Realty Co.
1921 OK 189 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Hughes v. Martin
1921 OK 111 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1920 OK 262, 191 P. 590, 79 Okla. 59, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-moore-okla-1920.