BOGGS v. McCASLAND

BOGGS v. McCASLAND
1926 OK 228
244 P. 768
117 Okla. 54
Case Number: 16381
Decided: 03/16/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BOGGS et al.
v.
McCASLAND.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Oil and Gas--Breach of Contract by Grantor--Nonliability of Grantee for Balance of Purchase Price.
Where M. purchased a one-half interest in the oil and gas and other minerals under a certain plot of ground, and pays $ 500 cash and agrees to pay $ 500 more out of the first oil taken from said land, and the deed contains a stipulation that the land adjoining this property, being a cemetery, should not be leased or drilled for oil and gas, and the lessor, after selling an interest in the oil and gas rights, leases the cemetery for oil and gas purposes, and wells are drilled thereon, such action on the part of the lessor constitutes a breach of contract, and the lessor cannot recover the balance of the purchase price.
2. Appeal and Error--Review -- Sufficiency of Evidence.
Where a jury is waived, and a case is submitted to the court, the judgment of the court will not be disturbed, if the evidence reasonably tends to support its judgment.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Error from District Court, Stephens County; M. W. Pugh, Judge.

Action by S. B. Boggs, W. F. Palmer, and J. D. Walton, trustee of Oak Grove Methodist Church, South, Stephens County, Okla., sometimes called Willow Point Church, against T. H. McCasland. Judgment for plaintiffs, and they appeal. Affirmed.

Sandlin & Winans, for plaintiffs in error.
Womack, Brown & Cund, for defendant in error.

MAXEY, C.

¶1 This action was commenced by the plaintiffs, as trustees of Oak Grove Methodist Church of Stephens county, Okla., against the defendant, T. H. McCasland, for the recovery of $ 360.09, with interest, as a part of the purchase price of certain mineral rights, which were sold by the church to the defendant, and which were to be paid for by said defendant from the production of the first oil produced from said land by the defendant. The deed from the plaintiffs, trustees, was executed on the 11th day of November, 1920, whereby the trustees of said church conveyed to the defendant, McCasland, an undivided one-half interest in the oil, gas, coal and mineral rights under the following tract, of land, to wit:

"One acre, more or less, commencing 177 yards from the northwest corner of section 3, township 2 south, range 8 west, and running 88 yards south, thence east 68 yards, thence north 88 yards, thence west to the place of beginning 68 yards; and

"One acre of land situated in the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of section 4, township 2 south, range 8 west, being the south one-third of a strip of land 68 yards wide, east and west, and 265 yards long, north and south, and containing two acres, more or less, of which said church was then the owner, and of which property the legal title has been, at all times mentioned herein, vested in the trustees of said church for the use and benefit of said church."

¶2 That as a consideration for said deed, McCasland was to pay $ 1,000 out of his interest in the first oil produced from said land. McCasland received one-half of 1-16th of oil produced on said land in the sum of $ 360.09, and refused to pay the other, because the plaintiffs had violated the terms of their contract by permitting what is known as the cemetery or graveyard to be drilled on. Said contract had the following provision in it:

"It is further agreed by the parties hereto that said lessor therein will not grant, demise, lease or let for the purpose of mining and operating for oil and gas that tract of land now in use as a graveyard, and more particularly described as follows: The north two-thirds of a strip of land 68 yards wide east and west, and 265 yards long north and south, and situated in the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of section 4, township 2 south, range 8 west."

¶3 It seems that, notwithstanding the above provisions in the contract made with McCasland at the time he purchased an interest in the oil and gas, the trustees of said tract of land used as a graveyard executed another lease on the part used as a graveyard and permitted wells to be drilled thereon. It is the contention of McCasland the defendant, that permitting wells to be drilled on the graveyard would drain the part of the property that he had bought an interest in, and he would be damaged thereby.