Getty Oil Company v.

Jones
Procedural History:
- Initial Hearing: May 26, 1971, Rehearing Denied: July 28, 1971,
Second rehearing Denied: Oct. 6, 1971
- The District Court, No. 106, Gaines County, Truett Smith, J., granted
lessees motion for verdict non obstante verdict and the owner
appealed. The San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals, Fourth Supreme
Judicial District, Barrow, J., reversed and remanded and both parties
brought error. The Supreme Court, Steakley, J., affirms the court of
civil appeals.
Facts:
Jones, respondent, the surface owner of a tract of land in Gaines
County, Texas, sued for an injunction to restrain Getty Oil Company,
petitioner, an oil and gas lessee, from using vertical space for pumping
units that prevent the use by him of an automatic irrigation sprinkler
system, and for damages. In 1955 Jones purchased the 635 acre tract
of land in question, which was subject to prior mineral leases in which
he acquired no interest. Getty holds an oil, gas and mineral lease
covering 120 acres in the west half of the tract. In 1955, Jones built
seven irrigation wells to irrigate his land. In 1967 Getty drilled two
more wells on this land that produced but would not flow, this
prevented the irrigation system from working properly, which
depreciated the value of the land. The market value of the land was

depreciated by $117,475, and the value of the use of the land was
depreciated by $19,000.
Issue:
Whether it was reasonably necessary for Getty to install pumping units
in the manner which denies Jones the use of his irrigation equipment.
Rule:
- Holding: No, it was not reasonably necessary for Getty to install
pumping units in the manner which denies Jones the use of his
irrigation equipment.
- Rule: Precedent: The only circumstance that is considered reasonably
necessary, and where the lessee has the right to pursue production of
minerals regardless of surface damage is when there is no alternative
way to produce the minerals.
Analysis:
By applying the rule to our set of facts, the court has determined that
under established practices in the industry there are alternatives
available to the lessee to recover their minerals, and the lessee should
adopt one of these alternatives.
Conclusion:
Judgment of the court of civil appeals is affirmed. Getty was making an
unreasonable surface use and Getty will have the right to install noninterfering pumping units; and in such event Getty will not be liable in
damages beyond the decrease in the value of the use of the land from

the time the interfering pumps were installed to the time of their
removal. Justice McGee and Justice Pope Dissent. They believe Gettys
use of land is reasonable as a matter of law because that the oil and
gas estate is the dominant estate, and there is no provision in the
lease requiring the oil company to install non-interfering pumping
units.