COOKE v. WESTGATE-GREENLAND OIL CO.

COOKE v. WESTGATE-GREENLAND OIL CO.
1939 OK 194
90 P.2d 940
185 Okla. 209
Case Number: 28165
Decided: 04/11/1939
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

COOKE
v.
WESTGATE-GREENLAND OIL CO. et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS--Oil and Gas Zoning ordinances Regulating Drilling of Wells--Application for Permit to Drill on Zoned Block--Jurisdiction of City Board of Adjustment and District Court on Appeal to Adjudicate Rights Arising Between Nonassenting Lot Owners and Permittee.
By virtue of sections 6170-6179, O. S. 1931, 11 Okla. Stat. Ann. secs. 401-410, and the zoning ordinances of Oklahoma City enacted pursuant thereto regulating the drilling of wells for oil and gas, the board of adjustment of said city, and the district court on appeal, in a proceeding upon application for permit to drill in any block .zoned for such purpose, may adjudicate all the legal and equitable rights arising between nonassenting lot owners on the one hand and the permittee on the other with relation to the question of participation in the operations and the bonuses and royalties to be paid such owners by the permittee.
2. SAME--Power of District Court to Award Nonassenting Lot Owners Bonuses and Royalties or to Permit Them to Participate in Operations on Basis of Tenancy in Common.
In a proceeding for a permit to drill a well for oil and gas in any area zoned for that purpose in Oklahoma City. the district court, in the exercise of its equitable powers conferred by sections 6170-6179, O. S. 1931, 11, Okla. Stat. Ann. secs. 401-410. and the zoning ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, may award to nonassenting lot owners as against the permittee reasonable bonuses and royalties or, in the alternative, permit such owners to elect within a given time to participate in the operations on the basis of tenancy in common.
3. SAME--Nonassenting Lot Owner Delaying to Elect to Participate in Drilling Operations Held to Have Elected to Accept Bonus and Royalties.
Where a nonassenting lot owner in a block zoned for oil and gas development in Oklahoma City fails within the time fixed by the district court to elect whether he shall participate in drilling operations or accept the bonus and royalties as decreed by the court on appeal of proceedings for permit to drill, such owner will be held to have elected to accept the bonus and royalties.
4. SAME--Amount of Cash Bonus Awarded by Court to Nonassenting Lot Owner Held Sufficient.
Record examined. Held, the amount of cash bonus as awarded by the court was sufficient under the clear weight of the evidence.

Appeal front District Court, Oklahoma County; Frank P. Douglass, Judge.

Proceeding by Westgate-Greenland Oil Company for permit to drill an oil and gas well in the corporate limits of Oklahoma City. From a judgment of the district court granting the permit and adjudicating the rights of the parties, Charles B. Cooke, a lot owner, has appealed. Modified and affirmed.

Everest, McKenzie & Gibbens, for plaintiff in error.
Willingham & Farris and Howard B. Hopps, for defendant in error Westgate-Greenland Oil Company.

GIBSON, J.

¶1 This case involves the individual and correlative property rights of lot owners and oil and gas lessees in a certain block in Oklahoma City formerly zoned for oil and gas development under ordinances enacted pursuant to the police powers as delegated by sections 6170-6179, O. S. 1931, 11 Okla. Stat. Ann. secs. 401-410.

¶2 The district court, on appeal from all order of the board of adjustment, proceeding under the statutes and ordinances aforesaid. issued to the respondent Westgate-Greenland Oil Company a permit to drill for oil and gas in said zoned area, and the Protestant, a lot owner therein, was dissatisfied with the judgment relating to bonuses and royalties to be paid to him as a nonassenting owner and his right to participate in the operations In lien of bonus, and has appealed to this court.

¶3 The facts and circumstances here on review are in legal effect substantially the same as those involved in Amis v. Bryan Petroleum Corporation, 185 Okla. 206, 90 P.2d 936, and the decision there as reflected by the syllabus is controlling and made to apply in the instant case.

¶4 In addition to the questions presented in the Amis Case, we are required to determine whether the district court may require a nonleasing lot owner in a drilling block to elect whether he shall accept the bonus and royalties fixed by the court or participate in the production of the well tinder conditions and circumstances ordinarily arising from the relationship of tenants in common.

¶5 Adopting our language employed in the Antis Case in disposing of a question of election similar to this, we hold that the district court, under the equitable powers invested in it by the aforesaid statutes and ordinances, was authorized to render such decree.

¶6 Further, we are asked to determine whether the district court can enforce its decree requiring an election on penalty of loss oil the part of the lot owner of the bonus and a portion of the royalties as awarded him by the court.

¶7 This question we answer in the negative. The trial court was without power, under the statutes and ordinances, to penalize anyone. It was not intended that a lot owner should be deprived of his equities as fixed by the decree upon failure of an election. As was stated in the Amis Case. if an election is not made in the time designated, the property owner is presumed to have elected to accept his bonus and percentage of the royalties as fixed by the court. The privilege is entirely equitable, and could injure no one.

¶8 Protestant says the trial court erred in fixing the amount of the cash bonus. He asserts that the weight of the evidence will show that $30 per front foot as fixed by the court was insufficient.

¶9 After an examination of the evidence we are unable to say that the judgment in the latter respect was against the clear weight thereof.

¶10 The judgment is modified to the extent of permitting the Protestant to accept the bonus and royalties as fixed by the court without penalty of forfeiture upon failure to elect as aforesaid, and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.