Simons v. First Nat. Bank in Bronte
Simons v. First Nat. Bank in Bronte
Opinion of the Court
G. A. Simons sought a declaratory judgment touching his right to $4,963 on special deposit with First National Bank in Bronte, Texas, which was also claimed by H. O. Wooten, and asked a recovery of it. Wooten asserted his claim- to the fund, and the Bank disclaimed any interest, asking only a fee for its attorney for bringing in the fund. The court after hearing evidence awarded the money to Wooten, charging the costs of litigation, including the fee for the Bank’s attorney, against Simons. Simons appeals.
The important facts are established by-written contracts. The conflicting testimony about understandings outside the writings, whether Simons furnished proper oil well casings, and whether the drilling under the first contract was abandoned or merely suspended prior to July 22, 1937, is not of controlling importance. The contracts, with their circumstances, are .as follows:
In Coke County,'Texas, there was believed to be an unproven oil field, a large acreage was under oil leases, and there was a general desire to put down a test well. Homer E. Ogden had 6,000 acres under leases about to expire for want of
Wooten contends that all that was done was one enterprise, that everybody was trying to get down a test well, that he put more money into it than anyone else, that Simons deposited this money in the Bank to secure the test well, and having gotten the well, the money ought not to go back to him, but to Wooten. The District Court so held. We do not think the rights of the parties can be so generally disposed of, but depend on the effect of the contracts above recited. This money originally belonged to Simons. If was to become Ogden’s only when and if he drilled a well to completion under the contract of March 20, 1937. Ogden did not do this. Even if Simons
Wooten, of course, was not bound by the settlement between Simons and Ogden. But he was not the assignee of the entire contract. He had not taken it over from Ogden and bound himself to perform it. He merely had as security for a debt an assignment of $5,500 out of Ogden’s pay when and if Ogden became entitled to it. The contract of March 20 was not a purely personal one, for it twice mentions Ogden’s assigns. Probably Wooten for his own protection could, when Ogden renounced performance, have assumed to carry out Ogden’s obligations and thus become entitled to the deposit. He was given this opportunity by Simons, and declined. After doing so, he had no further right to detain the deposit in the Bank. When several months later Simons brought this suit, Simons was clearly entitled to a return of his money.
He has not forfeited his right by anything that has since occurred. He has had no transaction at all with Wooten. He made a new trade for the drilling with Heap, the contract with Ogden being wholly at an end. Under this new contract Ogden was to furnish no money, but Heap was to get two-thirds of Simons’ holdings, 1600 acres, including the well if successful. Under Ogden’s contract Simons had retained all his holdings, and the well. Ogden’s rig and tools were used by Heap, but Ogden had consented to that in the contract of July 22. Wooten had a mortgage on them which he could have foreclosed but did not, doubtless because he wished the well as much as anyone, since he had acquired from Ogden at least 320 acres of the leases whose value depended on the test. When Heap gave Ogden written authority to do the drilling for him, no reference was made to the contract of March 20, but only to the contract Heap had with Simons. When on Feb. 1, 1938, Heap sought aid of Wooten, they made an independent contract in great detail, without the slightest allusion to any former right on Wooten’s part against the well. It was therein agreed that if there was production Wooten was to have a one-fourth interest in the well, and 160 acres surrounding it. On March 17, 1938, Wooten by another written contract agreed to finance Heap to a completion of the well. This contract made express reference to Heap’s contract with Simons, and stated that Ogden was drilling under Heap’s direction. It provided that if the well was a producer, the well and the 160 acres around it should belong wholly to Wooten. Since the well and 1600 acres were to belong to Heap in case of success by the terms of his contract with Simons, he could so agree with Wooten. But if Wooten was, as he now tries to claim, really carrying on the old contract of March 20, the well and land would be Simons. All that was done after October 28, 1937, was clearly done on the basis of the contract with Heap of that date and without any reference to or effect upon the contract of March 20. Simons’ right to the deposited money was not affected thereby. He is entitled to this money, and Wooten should bear the Bank’s expense and the costs which were occasioned by his unjustified claim. The cause is reversed and remanded with direction to enter judgment accordingly.
Reversed with direction.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- SIMONS v. FIRST NAT. BANK IN BRONTE, TEX.
- Status
- Published