Jamestown & Franklin R. R. v. Egbert
Jamestown & Franklin R. R. v. Egbert
Opinion of the Court
We think the offers of evidence referred to in the first and fourth specifications were properly rejected. The test of surrounding property was not the test required by the lease. It does not follow that because there was no oil on adjoining property, oil might not have been struck on this large tract.
The offer to show authority from the plaintiff to Getzendanner to release the appellants did not go far enough, and the court below was right in rejecting it. Neither was it competent to show an abandonment of the property under the terms of the lease.
Nor was it competent to show that a number of persons had misunderstood some of the earlier decisions of this court. See third specification.
Nor do we agree with the appellants’ construction of the word “ retained ” as contained in the lease. We think it refers to the right to operate for oil on the premises. This right the appellants “ retained ” so long as they failed to make a formal surrender.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Jamestown & Franklin R. R. Co. v. Egbert
- Cited By
- 10 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Oil lease — Forfeiture—Construction—Word “ retained.” An oil lease covering several tracts of' land provided for the drilling and operating of a well upon each tract, a failure so to do to forfeit the lease upon such tracts as were not operated upon. A failure to comply with any of the conditions of the lease rendered it void at the option of the lessor. In the event any piece of land failed to yield the lessor a certain royalty, the lessee agreed to pay a certain rental upon each such piece of land retained by the lessee. Held, that the word “ retained ” referred to the right to operate for oil on the premises, and this right continued until the lessee made a formal surrender of the lease. Surrender of lease — Authority of agent — Solicitor—Abandonment, An offer to show that the solicitor of a company had control of its legal business is not sufficient proof of his authority to accept surrender of a lease, or abandonment of the premises.