mands upon the lessee to develop the property by drilling additional wells. On the 1st of September, 1923, they wrote appellee a letter, in which they claimed that the lease had become null and void by the failure of the lessee to drill and operate additional wells on the leased premises. During the ensuing years, until this suit was brought, the lessors continued to claim that the lease had been forfeited, and the lessee that it had a right to continue the lease without drilling additional wells, as long as the well in section 11 continued to produce oil in paying quantities. Appellee expended about $8,500 in drilling the two wells.
The chancellor found that there should be a cancellation of the lease of the south part of the tract, consisting of all the land in sections 14, 22, and 23, comprising 570 acres in the southern part of the leased premises, and it was decreed that title to this land be quieted in appellants. The chancellor, however, was of the opinion that the lease should not be canceled to the northern 600 acres, being the land in section 2 and section 11, including the 10 acres around the producing well in section 11, and upon which appellants did not seek cancellation. It was decreed that the complaint of appellants should be dismissed for want of equity as to these remaining 600 acres.
Such other facts as may be necessary, to a decision of the issues raised by the appeal will be stated or referred to under appropriate headings in the opinion. The case is here on appeal.
Patterson Rector, for appellants.
Marsh, McKay & Marlin, for appellee.
HART, C.J., (after stating the facts). As will be seen from our statement of facts, the lease contains no express covenant as to the number of wells that should be drilled after the completion of the first one producing oil or gas in paying quantities. It did not contain any covenant requiring the drilling of producing wells to prevent oil or gas from draining from the leased premises
