(after stating the facts). The record in this case shows that appellee drilled three wells which produced gas on adjoining tracts of land so near to the boundary lines of appellants that the wells are drawing the gas from underneath, their land and in time will draw it all away. The only, practical way to offset this is to drill protection wells on the land of- appellants. It made no effort to drill protection wells. The lease does not contain any protection clause. The doctrine of protection is new in this State and arises from the fluid underground situation of either oil or gas.
On the part of appellants, it is claimed that when oil is drawn from underneath land by wells drilled near the boundary line which will obviously drain the land, there is an implied obligation on the part of the lessee to sink the number of wells necessary -to protect the demised tract.
Counsel for appellants insist that, appellee having failed and refused to drill the protection wells as requested by appellants, or to account to them for the gas drawn from their land, the refusal constitutes a breach of the contract and entitles appellants to declare a forfeiture and to sue for the damages resulting therefrom.
Counsel for appellee contend that appellants had no remedy in equity, and that their remedy, if any, was an action at law for damages. In the first place, it may be said that, if it was the duty of appellee to drill a protection well, and it refused to do this, its refusal would constitute an abandonment of the contract, and "equity would afford relief.
In the case of Mauney v. Millar, 134 Ark. 15, the court held that where the sole benefit of a contract results from a continued performance of the contract (such as to develop a mine, to operate it, pay royalties or to divide the proceeds), where one party completely abandons the performance thereof, equity will give relief by canceling the contract. For a partial breach the parties will be remitted to their remedies at law.
Moreover no objection was made or exceptions saved to the jurisdiction of the chancery court, and, under the repeated decisions of this court, the objection that equity had no jurisdiction can not be raised for the first time on appeal. Apple v. Apple, 105 Ark. 669, and cases cited.
It is well settled that, wlien equity has acquired jurisdiction of a matter in a suit for one purpose, all matters in issue will be adjudicated and complete relief afforded. Horstmann v. LaFargue, 140 Ark. 558.
This brings us to the question of whether there was an implied covenant in the lease to protect appellants against drainage, and, if so, what is the measure of damages recoverable for drainage through wells operated on other lands adjacent to appellants’ boundary lines.
The lease provides for a term of five years, and as long thereafter as gas is produced in paying quantities. The consideration for the first year is $1, and for each succeeding year that operation or exploration is delayed the lessee shall pay a yearly rental of $100 for the delay. The lease expressly authorizes the lessee to elect to pay a yearly rental, instead of drilling. Hence, the lessors can not recover damages for failure of the lessee to commence exploration for gas. If, however, the lessee commences to explore for gas, it must exercise due diligence in drilling, and there is an implied covenant on its part to do so. Mansfield Gas Co. v. Alexander, 97 Ark. 167. See, also, Lawrence v. Mahoney, 145 Ark. 310.
In the application of this principle, counsel for ap-pellee contend that there was no implied covenant on the part of appellee to sink protection wells on the land of appellants. They contend that the rule only applies where the lessee has in part developed the leased premises and produced wells. To support their contention they cite the case of Carper v. United Fuel Gas Co. (W. Va.), L. R. A. 1917 A, p. 171. In that case it was held that the lessor is not entitled to recover damages for failure to drill offset wells to prevent drainage, while the lessee exercises his optional right to pay money in lieu of drilling, and the lessor accepts it.
The court did hold, however, that there was an implied obligation on the part of the lessee to drill a well for protection against drainage, upon necessity therefor, and tlie lessor’s demand for such, action, within any rental period for which rent has been paid, with notice of intention to refuse to accept further rentals, and the right in the lessor to declare a forfeiture of the lease for noncompliance with such demand would afford full and ample protection from such losses. .
We think it perfectly sound to, say that the acceptance of delayed rental precludes the lessor from forfeiting the lease for failure to develop during the term covered by the delayed rental. In such a case the lessor still has the gas and has received the reserved rent for the delay in drilling.
In a case like the present one, however, the facts are essentially different, and a forfeiture of the lease would not afford adequate protection to the lessor. The lessee has the sole and exclusive right to drill. Should the lessee fail to drill a protection well after a producing well has been brought in near the lessor’s boundary lines on adjacent lands, such well might draw off a material portion of the gas under the lessor’s land before he could declare a forfeiture and procure some one else to drill an offset well.
The record shows that drilling wells is very expensive, and is only undertaken where the lessee has a large area of acreage in a block. It is a matter of common knowledge that the landowner is not equipped with machinery for drilling and could not purchase such machinery on short notice, if able to do so. Hence, when he leases his land to another with the exclusive right to drill for oil and gas on it for a stipulated period of time, there is an implied covenant on the part of the lessee to protect the land at least from wells drilled by him on adjoining property which will necessarily draw the gas from the lessor’s land. If there had been no lease on his land, the lessor could have had all the time during which the wells were drilled on adjoining land to have arranged for the drilling of an offset well on his land in case a producing well was brought in on the adjoining land which'would draw the gas off his own .land.- Of course, if lie failed to make such an arrangement, the loss would fall upon himself. In case, however, he has leased his land to another and has given the lessee the exclusive right to drill on his land for gas, it is obvious that the mere right of forfeiture in case the lessee would not drill a protection well would not afford him adequate relief. The practical test is to be found in the question, are the outside wells, as for example, the wells on the Grieg and Bryant tracts, draining the Blair land to such an extent that, if the wells on the Grieg and Bryant tracts were operated by a third party, appellee as lessee of the Blair tract, would find it good management to put down protection wells to save its own leased territory from exhaustion? If so, then good faith to its lessors would require it to put down the protection wells that the lessors might get their royalties under the lease, or at least be protected from having the gas drawn from their lands. In this connection we quote with approval from the case of Carper v. United Fuel Gas Co., supra, the following: “To say the lessor intended-to permit the oil and gas in his land to he withdrawn from it otherwise than through wells drilled on it under the lease, and thus to let it go to other persons for nothing, as an incident of his procurement of a small money rental for two, five, or ten years, would ho inconsistent with reason, and contrary to the legal principles governing the relation of landlord and tenant or licensor and licensee. For the rental reserved, he is neither selling his oil or gas, nor relinquishing his ownership thereof, nor consenting to severance or abstraction thereof. He expects it to remain in the land until the rental period ends, whether it ceases by the drilling of a well or expiration of the term. Nor can it be doubted that the lessee contemplated the same result. Neither could have intended that he should take out the mineral through wells on other lands. The words of his lease contemplate his extraction of the oil and gas through wells to be drilled by him on the land, and so emphatically deny any such intent on his part. The rental is for' delay, not destruction. If, by the negligence or misfeasance of a tenant, the demised property is materially injured, he is liable for the resultant damages, and the landlord may recover the amount thereof from him within the term, notwithstanding he has paid the rent or is bound to pay it. Moses v. Old Dominion Iron & Nail Works Co., 75 Va. 95, 102. If a tenant commit waste, an action lies against him. The landlord is not limited to his rent as, compensation. In these cases there need not be an express covenant against waste, nor an express agreement to pay the resulting damages. They are implied, if not expressed.”
The contract is a lease of the land for the purpose of drilling for oil and gas for the period of time designated therein, and the lessee has a vested right to the possession of the land to the extent reasonably necessary to perform the terms of the agreement on his part. Therefore there is an implied covenant on the part of the lessee to protect the lessor against drainage, and, in default thereof, the lessor may recover damages.
We think this view is supported by the authorities cited below, and in any event that it is in accord with the better reasoning on the question. J. M. Guffey Petroleum Co. v. Jeff Chaison Townsite Co. (Tex. Ct. Civ. App.), 107 S. W. 609; Powers v. Bridgeport Oil Co. (Ill.), 87 N. E. 381; Kleppner v. Lemon (Penn.), 35 Atl. 109; Culbertson v. Iola Portland Cement Co. (Kan.), Ann. Cas. 1914 A, p. 610; Harris v. Ohio Oil Co. (Ohio), 48 N. E. 502; Kelley v. Ohio Oil Co., 57 Ohio St. 317, 39 L. R. A. 765; Kellar v. Craig, 126 Fed. 630 and Thornton on Oil and Gas (3 ed.), vol. 1, par. 109 and vol. 2, par. 882.
What is the measure of damages recoverable for drainage through wells operated by defendants on their lands near the plaintiffs’ boundary line may b^ difficult of determination and troublesome to ascertain, but that is no bar to relief in such cases. For example, suppose in the present case the record should show that appellee had drilled wells on the adjacent lands near to the boundary lines of appellants for the very purpose of drawing the gas from underneath their lands through these wells, it is obvious that such conduct of the appel-lees would be fraudulent and actionable. Or suppose,/" as in the case of Millar v. Mauney, 142 Ark. 486, the evidence had showed that the formation on the leased land was of such a character that it was not practicable to drill through it, but that the gas could be best drawn from underneath the land by drilling a well on the adjacent land outside of the leased premises and the wells on the Bryant and Greig tracts has been drilled by appel-lees there on this account, the failure on the part of the lessee to pay the royalty agreed upon would be actionable. In either of the supposed cases the measure of damages would be the same as in the cases of a breach of an implied covenant to protect the demised premises against drainage. To hold otherwise would to be deny relief in a just case because of the difficulty of ascertaining the amount of loss suffered by the wrongful action of the offending party.
It appears from the record that expert witnesses acquainted with the gas field may testify with reasonable accuracy as to the number of wells which should have been drilled on the leased land for protection from drainage. Such witnesses might also testify with reasonable accuracy as to the quantity of gas obtained from the wells. They did say that the sand in which the gas was found was sufficiently porous that a well would draw from underneath the ground gas for a distance of a quarter of a mile in all directions. The record in the case also shows that the three wells operated by appellee on the adjacent tract will in due course of time draw all the gas from underneath the land of appellants. The lessee under the facts disclosed by the record, is liable to the lessors for their proportionate share of the gas taken by the wells drilled so near their boundary lines as to draw off the gas underneath their land. There is no reason why it can not be ascertained with reasonable certainty what quantity and quality of gas has been and will be taken from appellant’s land through the wells drilled and operated by appellee on the adjoining land. Culbertson v. Iola Portland Cement Co. (Kan.), Ann. Cas. 1914 A, p. 610, 125 Pac. 81.
This is a new question in this State, and it does not appear that the testimony on the measure of damages was fully developed. Therefore, upon the remand of the case, the chancery court is directed to allow either party to take additional testimony on this point within a reasonable time to be allowed by the court or the chancellor thereof, if the parties shall be so advised. Tankersley v. Norton, 142 Ark. 339; Rushing v. Horner, 135 Ark. 201; Bank of Des Arc v. Moody, 110 Ark. 39, and McClintock v. Robertson, 98 Ark. 595.
For the error in refusing to allow appellants to recover damages against, appellee for the breach of the implied covenant to drill protection wells against drainage, the decree will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.