Payne v. Pray

173 F.2d 149, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3818
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 9, 1949
DocketNo. 3728
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 173 F.2d 149 (Payne v. Pray) 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
Payne v. Pray, 173 F.2d 149, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3818 (10th Cir. 1949).

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying specific performance of a contract in an action by Payne and Herndon against Pray and Bauman.

On June 6, 1946, Magnolia Petroleum Company1 addressed a “farm-out” letter to Payne which recited that Magnolia was the owner of an oil and gas lease covering the E % of the NE Section 1, Township 4 N, Range 4 W,2 and stated that if [150]*150Payne, on or before August 1, 1946, would commence the drilling of a well on the NE 54 of the NE 4 of such Section 1, and, on or before August 1, 1947, complete the drilling thereof to a depth sufficient to test the Bromide sand, Magnolia would assign that portion of such lease to Payne.

On June 7, 1946, the Ohio Oil Company 3 addressed a letter to Pray which stated that Pray had agreed to commence the drilling of a well, on or before July 1, 1946, in the NE 54 of the NE 54 of such Section 1, and to prosecute the drilling thereof with due diligence to a depth sufficient to test the Wilcox sand; that as a contribution to Pray for drilling such well, Ohio had agreed to assign to him an oil and gas lease covering the NW 54 °f the SW 54» Section 6, Township 4 N, Range 3 W.4

Payne had acquired so-called “dry-hole” contribution letters which provided for the payment to him of an aggregate of $59,000, provided the well on the Magnolia lease, upon its completion, was plugged and abandoned as a dry hole.

On June 11, 1946, Payne and Bauman entered into a contract which provided that Bauman would pay Payne the sum of $3,-750 in cash; that Payne would assign to Bauman all his rights under the Magnolia agreement of June 7, 1946, reserving, however, to Payne, as an overriding royalty, a 5Í6th of %ths of the oil and gas produced under the Magnolia lease. Bauman paid Payne the sum of $3,750.

On June 11, 1946, Payne and Bauman entered into a further contract which recited the making of the prior contract of June 11, and that, as an inducement to Bauman to drill the well on the Magnolia lease, Payne represented to Bauman that he could acquire “dry-hole” letters providing for the payment of an additional amount of $39,000. It further provided that, in the event Payne should be able to obtain from Ohio, the Sun Oil Company,5 or any other company owning oil and gas leases in the area, any interest in leases, “bottom hole monies” or other thing of value, “as a consideration for the drilling of the well on the Magnolia” lease, such interest in leases,, monies, or other thing of value should be assigned by Payne to Bauman, but that. Payne should be entitled to reserve to himself, as an overriding royalty, 5ieth of %ths. of the oil and gas produced under such, leases.

Pray completed the well on the Magnolia, lease in accordance with the letter of June-6, and Payne received proper conveyance of the overriding royalties which he reserved in the oil and gas to be produced under the Magnolia and Ohio leases.

On June 14, 1946, Pray wrote a letter to-Payne with which he enclosed the check for $3,750 provided for in the first agreement of June 11, and stated: “In addition to this, cash you are to receive a 5ieth of % override in all of the acreage that you have obtained and on any additional acreage in, which you are working on, such as Sun,, Mid-Continent, etc.”

Payne attempted to obtain from Sun a “farm-out” agreement with respect to its. lease covering the E 54 of the E 54 of the-SW 54 of Section 6 and the N 54 of the NE 54 of the NE 54 of the NW 54 of Section 7, Township 4 N, Range 3 W,6 or a dry-hole contribution agreement with respect to the well to be drilled on the Magnolia lease. Payne also attempted to acquire from the . Mid-Continent Petroleum 'Corporation 7 a “farm-out” agreement with, respect to its oil and gas lease covering the-NW 54 of the NW 54 and the W 54 of the NE 54 of the NW 54 of Section 7, Township 4 N, Range 3 W.8 Payne attempted to secure such agreement with Sun and. Mid-Continent in consideration of Pray drilling the well on the Magnolia lease,, but Mid-Continent and Sun refused on the ground that the well on the Magnolia lease-was too far distant from their respective leases. Information derived from the drilling of the well on the Magnolia lease would not have been of material value in determining whether oil or gas would be found on the Frankenberg lease or on the Myers lease.

[151]*151The Frankenberg lease and the Myers lease each provided that it should expire unless the drilling of a well was commenced thereon on or before November 13, 1946.

Pray and Bauman commenced the drilling of the well on the Magnolia lease on June 22, 1946. During September, 1946, they encountered showings of oil and gas in the Pennsylvania and Hunton lime formations. On October 24, 1946, they drilled into a large oil-bearing sand, known as the Bromide sand, and became convinced that the well would result in a substantial commercial producer from the Bromide sand at a depth of about 10,000 feet. They were advised by their geologist to acquire the Frankenberg and Myers leases and any other leases in the area. Pray immediately contacted Sun and Mid-Continent and asked Payne to contact them in an effort to acquire the leases.

On October 25, 1946, Sun entered into an agreement with Pray and Bauman whereby they agreed to commence a well on the Frankenberg lease on or before November •6, 1946, and to continue the drilling thereof until they had completed a conclusive test in the Bromide sand by their well on the Magnolia lease; that upon the completion of ■such test on the Magnolia lease, they might elect either to abandon or continue the drilling of the well on the Frankenberg lease; that in the event they elected to continue such well, they should enter into a “farm-out” agreement with Sun requiring them to •continue the drilling of such well on the Frankenberg lease with due diligence to a •depth sufficient to thoroughly test the Bromide sand, and that such “farm-out” agreement should reserve in Sun an overriding royalty of Vis th of all oil and gas produced .on the Frankenberg lease and an “oil payment” of $100,000 out of an additional %eth of all oil and gas produced under such lease, the oil payment not to mature until Pray and Bauman had recovered from their part of the oil and gas produced under such lease, as development costs, $250,000 for • each well drilled on the lease.

Pursuant to such “farm-out” agreement, Pray moved a string of rotary drill equipment onto the Frankenberg lease and commenced the drilling of a test well thereon and completed the same as a commercial producer in the Bromide sand at a cost of approximately $250,000.

On October 28, 1946, Mid-Continent and Pray entered into an agreement whereby it agreed to assign to Pray the Myers lease with respect to 60 acres of the total 170 acres covered thereby and, in consideration thereof, Pray agreed to commence the drilling of a well on the 60-acre tract on or before November 8, 1946, and to prosecute the drilling thereof to a depth sufficient to test the Bromide sand. Pray drilled such well at a cost of approximately $250,000, and received an assignment out of the Myers lease of 60 acres thereof.

The well on the Magnolia lease was completed January 31, 1947, to a depth sufficient to test the Bromide sand.

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

Related

Foree v. Tri-County Electric Ass'n
227 F.2d 945 (Tenth Circuit, 1955)
J. R. Foree v. Tri-County Electric Association
227 F.2d 945 (Tenth Circuit, 1955)
Van Dreal v. Van Dreal
214 F.2d 715 (Tenth Circuit, 1954)
McNutt Oil & Refining Co. v. Mimbres Valley Bank
174 F.2d 311 (Tenth Circuit, 1949)
Putts v. Commercial Standard Ins.
173 F.2d 153 (Tenth Circuit, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 F.2d 149, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-pray-ca10-1949.