*1 Andry There is reserved Streets”.
plaintiff, Prince, Clementine proportion-
claim from defendants of the enhanced value of the
ate share improvements resulting
property
рlaced it after the death of upon James proceedings All costs in these are
Brough. proportion paid litigants
to be by plaintiff-appellee
of one-fourth by defendants-appellants.
three-fourths
FOURNET, J.,C. absent.
89 So.2d
Arthur MELANCON
v. et al.
The TEXAS COMPANY
No. 42688.
May 7, 1956.
Rehearing June Denied *3 Lake, Lewis, S. Liskow
Richard & Gremillion, Charles, C. Charles Lake for defendant-appellant. Rault,
Joseph Jr., Miazza, M. Kalford K. Terriberry, Carroll, Young, Rault & New Orleans, Drury, Orleans, Miazza & New of plaintiff-appellee. counsel FOURNET, Chief was on 12 months commenced or before Justice. date, delaying from the privilege of oil, This and gas suit cancel is a delay such paying termination annual executed the landowner acre, per rentals of and the usual one- $5 plaintiff, Melancon, held Arthur and now eighth royalty in clause case of defendant, Company, The Texas gas quantities; of oil paying in or in and affecting a 120 land situated acre tract of used, case is not sold or the lessee Parish;1 appeal is in Lafourche and this granted privilege paying of $100 a judgment cancellation. ordering the royalty per year per well “shut-in as undisputed in record show The facts royalty.” plain- granted by the lease dеlay The paid >up and rentals were primary tiff on term July including July 20, 1951, those due on there- years, of 5 con- with a bonus cash or $600 by maintaining the effect for sideration, Paret, contract in within a L.G. who year. another In the fall of 1951 defendant, days assigned few same to the Company, pro- availing Texas itself Company; agreement and The Texas lease,2 vision in the unit decla- executed a between ration, 20, 1951, recorded on October February for an additional con- acres, compris- cover a area unitized $600, sideration bonus of the lease was ing portion property plaintiff, primary term extended additional for an adjoining Donald Bollinger, the owner years. It contained usual clause for land, A others. well commenced on drilling termination the lease unless velop operate premises said leased so tract is described a certain The land as promote oil, descending Bayou as to the conservation bank of on the left S., minerals Lafourche, other ®. Such T. 17 located Section pooling E., being E., of tracts shall be which will form also R. R. 19 contiguous body by property one land for each of Donald above bounded by property Bollinger, of Valentine below unit and the unit or units so created shall Inc., forty Plantation, (40) and in rear not exceed acres each *. appears maps arpent line; writing Lessee shall execute and rec- long, strip, Conveyance narrow rec the record ord Records of the frontage shape, tangular with a short land Parish which the herein leased Bayou. identifying instrument on the is situated an describing pooled acreage; upon option, hereby given its “Lessee recordation, the unit or units shall any power without *4 and further the * ** thereby become effective. Drill- . pool approval to Lessor or combine ing reworking operations pro- or on or royalty, acreage, or mineral inter- the ** gas, oil, of duction from land any portion by lease, this or covered est pooled included in such unit shall have land, leases, thereof, or with other lease continuing effect the of lease force royalty in the im- mineral interests and during primary and effect or after the vicinity thereof, when, in Les- mediate term all the land as to of covered here- necessary judgment, it or ad- see’s ‡ * *,» (Paragraph 11.) by properly in order to to do so de- visable plaintiff 27, 1951, plaintiff on those unit and situated to to whom had the October land, finally sold Bollinger’s royalty was abandoned fractional and in- on mineral terests, 24, 1952.3 On which unproductive of had on March the defendant sales However, been following Texas advised. produc- The after the 19th of the month stated, tion of gas distillate, a second Company executed and recorded and as above on forty covering Sep- different various dates intermittent unit declaration between 1952, 31, tembеr 8 comprising portions of and well again tract but October acre was temporarily Bol- plaintiff of Donald in and the defend- and shut the lands Company, 4, 1952, ant 10, 1952, operations for on did May On November linger. plaintiff forward $75, its begun on Bol- check drilling of well were unit; well, representing stipulated property three-fourths linger’s royalty” per “shut-in gas per Bollinger Six Num- well Donald Unit $100 known as year- plaintiff well, following that time dis- which ber One tests —the posed mineral totaling one- productive and dis- interests gas found to be was fourth;4 6, again 1953, August and on No. Southcoast tillate in Southcoast and Company gas forwarded another “shut-in Sands, completed in latter No. was royalty” plaintiff’s for $50 check to cover September 7, August On on sand remaining fractional interest.5 Those opened 8, 1952, pro- the well was plaintiff checks were received were but delivery gas and distillate duction not cashed. Texas gas fuel gas of The into line supply rig
Company, being plaintiff then used to At conferences between the and vicinity. operators October, Company Texas fuel to various officials of The produced 1952, March, 1953, were sold The distillate on occasions and, seeking Texas others to to have itself; instances, during owners, this property plaintiff, including some to made period larger unit agree entire than the no area of contract, stipulated from the tendered acres lease distillate, either agree and sale refused to a re- expired plaintiff, Bollinger’s on its additional sales face 5.Three conveying 30, 1951, oil, gas but was December each on l/16th under minerals in and under in force other the land maintained Sep- paragraph made thereof. were on affected Dymard, to Duard tember Eymard, Eymard; July 6, and Louis J. a one- T. sold Emile 4. On Dolty Harvey September Peltier Chera- interest on mie; fourtli February Peltier; Harvey Peltier to John Donald Plaisance; remaining 21, 1951) (May in- in- B. sold a later l/32nd subject terest a sale W. Rhea. Donald terest 9/16ths interest Dave l/128th 22, 1952. J. Robichaux October *5 per providing payment lease $100 showed vision at those times of the unit but well, delay year per pay had the failure treatment he dissatisfaction with the 20, 1953; July (d) rentals company.6 lack of au- hands of received thority plaintiff 18, 1953, by lease of maintain the until November was not It gas shut-in attorney a and distillate well not located plaintiff, through his land, unit; 1953, formally on though within the same November dated letter invalidity (e) of unit declaration because defendant that because notifying the expiration primary its executed after term part discharge on its various failures non-pay- lease; produce lessee, Bollinger’s (f) failure to including obligations as period said well for a in excess of 90 con- that lease ment of accrued cancelled, requested days payment delay execu- secutive without the been had prosecution reworking in rentals or further tion of a surrender the lease formal 30:102, operations; drilling (g) for or lack of au- accordance with LSA-R.S. thority time the amount defendant to treat well the first due as a gas gas and distillate used sold “shut-in” well when there was a sale of period vicinity, ex- Company, gas The Texas demand for and fail- July through Oc- tending from adequately ure of the market tober, plaintiff; but tendered to gas; (h) pay pro- said failure to or tender Royal- promptly returned. the checks were royalties gas duction from the sale of thereafter, monthly ties tendered were distillate, production, from date of initial May refused. followed This suit despite repeated oral and written demands plaintiff, until the lease had been forfeited; declared (i) failure reason- plaintiff’s petition, after recitation ably prudently develop lease. facts, re- foregoing of' the prayer was for cancellation of quested judicial cancellation of the lease attornеy’s $20,- and for fees in the sum of grounds, pleaded in on several the alterna- 000, under LSA-R.S. 30:102. substantially (a) tive and as follows: fail- pay delay July
ure to rentals on For defendant, answer the The Texas gas payment a shut-in (b) failure to Company, generally legal denied all grounds comple- reasonable time from the within a for cancellation of the sub well; inadequacy (c) and in- tion position may stance its be stated to be that validity of the shut-in clause of the under the contracts of lease with the. land- any production; he could Plaintiff claims not understand that be declined to have why being paid any dealings the small he amount further company .the payment well was when the known to royalties $75 be a and demanded producer, disputed and when $600 received due. This company delay rentals before there had been and will be discussed later. - problems payment of owners, relating (a)- 40 acre declare the it had units; operations (b) within on shut-in wells and drilling its рroduction royalties, and within the units followed observing leases well not be both to maintain all with- could last unit sufficed well, plaintiff; con- producing shut-in well including unit that of the necessary to cluded from the facts of the consequently, was tender case “Bollinger delay July 1952, or Unit Number well was either rentals on *6 proceeded producing thereupon drilling operations well.” He July because time; viewpoint, being nor was to decide the case from that conducted at that were royalties, he necessary analysis and after an of the evidence tender shut-in to November, 1952, never rejected and Au- the defense that there had as done in was part being been a refusal on the of gust, since the lease was main- finding a that by production; no as fact pay that there was to tained no acceptable for the there has such declaration ready gas, or market “While been words, equivalent commenced there has been its nеgotiations were with though companies which en- no merit in the de- gas pipe line deeds.” He also found various company would be warranted at a later date —after fense that a forfeiture abled pay following to contract if there were a refusal this suit was filed—to conclude a demand, price expressing doubt higher at a much and after for of the formal sale before; demand company requirement of formal obtainable than was pay- required, the evi- demand been said that if such were that had made for denied plaintiff that himself production royalties prior to No- dence showed ment of times, vember, 1953, to least three with- or it had refused oral demand at that made that, success, the con- being not concluded paying excuse for that out and he —the specific carried date negotiations being concerning on with tract silent plaintiff payment, the field defendant lessors in the failure of the other pay royalties reason- within develop so of the units as for revision custom of the time in accordance to able roy- spacing, and on 160 acre that the area of a failure considera- trade amounted to being with- which had accrued were alties finally concluded “that'the judge tion. The negotia- such pending held the result of royalties by the non-payment of defendant tions. in- negligence not the result judge the trial heard On these issues advertence, purposeful studied and merits, the matter under took case on designed pres- intended nonfeasance advisement, a well considered rendered acceptance an sure into which, detailing the after sev- opinion in contrary unit to his enlarged production by the urged and the terms the con- grounds express eral desires out those tract.” singled cancellation contention, development under disposing surrounding defendant’s circum- lease,7 stances, fact; or some other undetermined paragraph
based on 8 of the forfeiture, good under which conditions a lessee in grounds even if there were appear equitably been faith would deserve there there had could be none until opportunity comply lessee had to conform or judicial ascertainment fact,” judicially findings obli- perform discharge its ascertained failed to consequently applicable the facts gations, which the lessee had remedy opportunity its defec- of case here. given the tions, judge the trial declared defendant-appellant, in addition paragraph judicial ascertain- “relates to the originally advanced below and defenses facts, circumstances ment of conditions or disposed judge his written trial dispute fide subjects a bona that are the reasons, as defense well as additional disagreement a real as to which there is applica- time in an urged thеre for the first as parties, faith between good i.e., rehearing, tion for the lessee because of quantum royalties due entitled to withhold un- any other disputed ownership or for reason, question as to Paragraph 7 of the under the determined been there had reasonable or not whether than six lease8 there were more since sulphur gas, oil, retained shall be tract so “After tion. The square has been secured numeral designated or other the land near a Lessee hereby, this lease shall practicable.” (Paragraph covered form as *7 subject loss, to or ei- supplied.) be not forfeiture italics except part, in or in ther whole after judicial that party ascertainment Lessee rights of either hereunder 8. “The perform discharge to may assigned part and has its in whole or in and failed be obligations hereunder has and been their hereof shall extend to opportunity - given assigns, reasonable there- heirs, and but no successors prevent such loss or change ownership to in forfeiture or division of the after by complying discharging rentals, with and its lands, or however ac- obligations has operate enlarge as to which Lessee been complished, shall to judicially to be obligations rights determined in or diminish the default. of Les- any per- cancellation or termination of case of If see. at time two or more any cause, participate Lessee shall this lease be to in sons entitled right payable hereunder, to retain under the terms may pay have rental Lessee forty of land around jointly per- acres each hereof or tender said rental to such producing, on, joint drill- or well worked son or to their credit in the de- ing hereunder, pository herein, or, unless there be in force named at Lessee’s spacing election, proportionate at time a part in said area such of said regulation participаnt or of the Conservation order rental to which enti- each governmental may paid or other sep- Commissioner tled be or tendered to him allocating forty agency arately separate more than acres or to his credit in said well, depository, payment in which case shall any to each Lessee and or tender to ' right participant portion retain have the to around each of his of the rentals well the number of acres allocated such to hereunder shall maintain this as lease to regula- participant. each under such order Notwithstanding well or any 61b 60’9 limited to- royalty- mentioned in but be parties (a), should who had entitled become thereunder, which payments been interest and it not %eths on, exe- of the whole sued sold furnished instrument with recordable Cloths suit; parties agent prior (c) mineral interest designating cuted those attorney’s improperly first allowed payment, urges receive now fees only in аpplies (a) (based remain- LSA-R.S. 30:102 time the defense on the because portion to- paragraph der unitalicized the case of rentals or 8—the failure lessee, in carry operations within reserving of footnote lease 7— event, lease, time, period and, any no event of the fixed of termination any producing prove value to retain 40 acres around evidence was offered to acres, if well or the number of such number of such services. larger,
be each well under a allocated to defendant, argument in his Counsel for of Con- spacing order of the Commissioner brief, the lower court concedes force) servation then in if it should correctly the well had been a found be there ground found for cancellation to maintain the producing well sufficient provision of the contract contract, royalty” pay- and that “shut-in applied since, must be rendition before unnecessary; (in view of ments were court, judgment larger in the lower production roy- payment of the fact that the units had been formed Conservation delayed until checks were mailed alties was Bollinger Commissioner Unit 6 No. November, 1953, acres, well was in in- a unit of 160 fractional mineral inter- other owners of land, plaintiff’s cluded 38 acres of that area might that “It be said that ests) admits defendant; (b) must be reserved negligent in that The Texas judgment that if the favor be “certainly regard;” argues not to all, in- cancellation,” be support maintained it should further extent “True, The Texas observing: acreage reserved as as effective apportionable knowledge be- shall hereunder of or or constructive actual leasehold owners rata- the several tween to Lessee whatsoever thereof notice according each, bly change to the surface area of assigns, own- or division no payment by rentals, rental lands, royalties, ership default one rights binding upon of other lease- not affect of this shall the owner shall be days thirty (30) hereunder. six or more owners hold and until unless If entitled to become here- lease shall owner of this record may by registered under, withhold Lessee United have been furnished place principal until unless and its mail at his or States furnished thereof *8 by by copy, instrument executed recordable certified to of business designating pai'ties agent Court, instru- all of recorded of the Clerk of payment (Paragraph evidencing dll. receive In as- ment same. event of supplied.) segregated signment italics of this lease as to a payable land, portion of said the rentals * ** n did judgment court the lower amount delay paying Plaintiff a small of “ * * * * * * accrued; hap- regardless what royalties (cid:127)of that had of payment roy- pened in during delay of in only it had a total about reached $500 of alties, had reached delay end, payment before and even was made if point the con- a violation suit we think counsel’s was filed.” And tract, right denied the position the lease also fairly well stated in his further is itself paragraph provisions only serious factual dis- remarks that “The of forfeiture 'judicial as- pute is in generally Plaintiff and Defendant between referred ** *;” case; concluding phase clause with this certainmenf “ connection ** effect testimony it of what was so the ultimate relates to rep- that it denied Defendant’s clause must be said Plaintiff and delay pay- for a in accrued cancellation of the lease connection with resentatives in that were ment of no time fixed alleged demands when and the therefor, com- though the well was even it should found payment made after be pleted. contention from the demand made it is Defendant’s evidence But ” ‡ ** any event, appreciation of the and if Plaintiff’s refused whether it no accepted judgment decreeing not would make cancellation evidencе is should * * lease, upheld, The Melancon it be ineffective as to *. should the 38 difference form, does land usual commercial acres of within the unit like the payment fix time for the Conservation under Commissioner’s force, give right of royalties. should be Nor does limited to order now delay plain- or for failure to interest owned cancellation for the %6ths instituted, that have accrued. paying royalties tiff when suit was and should fact, specific provisions, deny attorney’s two fees. allowance of if a right of cancellation even denies the (Emphasis ours.) made; provisions' has been those demand paragraphs 7 and 8
being found in system interprétation In the brief: stated same As otherwise of oil and contracts which this Court “ * * * the Lower even Courfs find- if many years, has followed for lessor’s accepted, juris- even ing if of facts oil and under usual lease is prudence would allow cancellation generally placed category. rent Such a char some leases demand- for (see is well fixed our acterization law 'pay, to so royalties and refusal Revenue, Milling v. Collector of 220 La. case, is the law between lease in this containing a summary 57 So.2d parties, by paragraph analysis pertinent cases), and has cancellation; provision .7, and that denies given pro little trouble since this Court’s should cause the reversal more than three the nouncement of decades itself *9 613 614 “ * * * past quarry, Code, pertinent that a mine or sions of the be- LSA-Civil may adapted mining quarrying, land cause under synallag- our lease “is a law pro portion contract, be of the matic leased for certain consent alone is * * * ”, fact quarry, duce of such and the sufficient mine or Article are in portion ‘royalty/ that such is found in the section treating called “Of Conven- rent, III; IV, stead least conse Obligations”, is not of the tional Title Book Co., quence.” Logan v. State Gravel therein it is stated term no that “When 105, 109, The rule is performance La. 103 So. is fixed the construing equally in obligation, well established that of the im- may it be executed “ * * * pro unless, mediately, leases, codal the from the nature of the act, term, uncertain, either applicable ordinary leases must certain or must visions * * * implied ”, 2050; be equity, applied.” Coyle American Article be v. North Consolidated, usage may and law So.2d be to in such Oil 201 La. resorted cases, Co., 1964; Article “usage” La. is Tyson Surf Oil the word v. prac- defined as generally “that which 248, 196 is So. 336. ticed in affairs of the same with that nature subject which forms the of the contract. of the LSA-Civil House generally paid rent some cities is lease, subject treating of the Code month; the quarter. others the Chapters 1 and found under to be house, a contract for the hire of a without IX, III, particularly Book and of Title expressing paid, when the rent was be general the heading “Of those under the deficiency by proof supplied the would be Lеssee”, Rights Obligations and the usage, Article 1966. bound stipulate "The is lessee (Emphasis ours.) * * * pay the terms 2. To rent at the on”, Article agreed fails if due, he may when rent the In the case based on
expelled property, accepted Article and oil it is the from lessor, record, is, standpoint custom, from as reflected very Rent contract, basis, payments monthly for motive make such primary early Kron computed case of on the amount of and oil sold recognized was so justi A when this Court the line from the Watsoh, La.Ann. or run into well. v. rent, pursu delay payment might cause “The fiable held dispute is a contract there reasonable terms arise when ance engagement part entitled receive those essential an each, no non-compliance with due such factual lessee, his amount or the presented, agree we is here to sue situation lessor gives to judge delay that a of fifteen provi- the trial the contract.” Other dissolution of '615 unjustifiable testimony plain- According to reason is
months for valid no tiff, meeting place contract. took Oc- terms of the the first violative of .and tober of 1952 Donald in the office of Mr. cases relied on several perusal A Bollinger Lockport, de- which the they clearly are shows by the defendant represented fendant Company Mr. standpoint factual inapposite Irby Baudoin; present also beside controlling here.9 therefore 'not Donald Bollinger were Mr. there contention Defendant’s father, George Bollinger. Mr. When demand,” that such demand no “formal sign agree- was asked to *10 to a refusal preliminary necessary is a ment to drilling increase size of the forfeiture pay, absence in its acres, flatly unit from 40 to 320 he re- warranted, persuasive is not would not be fused, Bollinger; plaintiff then as did Mr. judge, the trial finding of face of in the inquired payment of about the his finding, of his confirmation and of our was told Mr. Baudoin that that was obli of its violation the defendant’s active department not his since he was with the Code, lease. LSA-Civil gations under district land office. The next meeting was Baer, La. 18 1932;10 v. Rosenthral Article March, 1953, camp held in in boat near Estate, 573; v. Louisiana Inc. Ann. Noel Bollinger’s shop. Mr. At that meeting The 45, But 744. Corp., La. 175 So. Ref. 188 Oil represented Texas was Mr. T. necessary place the defendant if it were Winn, man, land Odus division and lease fact that the exact default because Baudoin; present, and Mr. also beside the royalties not payment of was fixed time for plaintiff, LeBlanc, were Messrs. Rene contract, we are not unmind subject in the George Bollinger, Donald and and others. provisions of the Civil Code that ful of the request Again officials may in default be accom placing a debtor in units, for an increase the size was presence plished verbally, of two acres; from 160 time 40 to again the 1911, witnesses, record, and the we Article plaintiff sign, refused to became excited think, clearly supports judge’s the trial find and waved royalty” in the air the “shut-in payment asked for ing received, check of bitterly he had $75 com- times, royalties production least three plaining that before was discovered at meetings attended others in their he being paid year, was yet now that $600 presence. production had been obtained he only was Tyson Co., 248, 195 La. 9. v. Surf Oil 196 10. “When there is active violation of * * Sugar 336; Syndi- contract, Brown v. Creek So. the creditor 865, 583; cate, Risinger obligation put 197 So. 195 La. under no the debtor Company, default, v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas 198 289; 101, La. 3 So.2d and Rudnick v. Un- Co., Producing 943, ion 209 La. 25 So.2d n 617 pay by plaintiff Bollinger, said: he either paid Mr. Winn
being To $75. The production. gas. ment oil, selling you are selling are “You Baudoin, representative Mr. was defendant’s you pay me?” going to When are meetings, these both of [plaintiff] who attended me that “he couldn’t told though present during in court the course unit.” larger Company] until we [the trial, placed not оn the stand at of the was plaintiff called July Again in June his testimony company in New rebut defendant the office respect, pre creating witnesses Mun- Orleans, Ed he talked Mr. where sumption under that had he testified department, and our law son, testimony his been detrimental to his would have payment; answer again demanded v. cause of the defendant. Centanni paid, he question why he 203; Centanni, your La. So. Bour get way you can told "the geois v. 202 La. 12 So.2d Bourgeois, leases you sign if of the new rental is one 278; Blitz, Bates v. do. La. So.2d have,” refused again we
816; Yeates, 541, 35 213 La. Succession 210; Olivier’s Minor Children v. So.2d plaintiff as testimony Olivier, 215 La. Pearl So.2d by the tes is corroborated meeting the first Mattes, stine v. 223 La. 67 So.2d Bollinger; as timony of Mr. Donald plaintiff is corroborated meeting, carefully analyzing studying second After transpired by the what testimony version of the record we are inclined Bollinger and Rene testimony Donald agree with the conclusion the trial quite request judge The record is clear LeBlanc. that a third *11 positively plaintiff Bollinger royalties most production plain- made both was the larger tiff, him, than unit agree any Company’s refused to as testified with the spoke their contracts that established office in New Orleans when he Mr. defendant, requested payment secretary (who and that both Ed Munson that his testified stating however, probably present; in their tes production was was she representative Company Mr. timony placed stand). that the never the Mr. on While royalties the could thém that that Winn advised Munson testified his recollection was shape paid the plaintiff pur- be until size that visited him for the not had pose On behalf complaining unit been determined. new had about cow that had Winn, Company, though deny its Mr. because the been lost absence of a fence pit positively made the statement an mud at ing around abandoned the well production property, “that meeting near he at the second nevertheless re- paid plaintiff not that the did could until the size called mention to him royalties happy on,” about shape the new unit was “that he wasn’t amount of agreed made, receiving he was any request recall being shut-in com- was unable pay royal- while pared neighborsand production would his to some [the not, ties], why plaintiff they [being did ask for not if were not deny he would him, paid]” he royalties appearing due accrued that Munson knew the payment of —it production royalties de- paid; had no recollection had not been he stated question whether while Mr. Rault get to the was In answer not able an mand. answer, telling exact Mr. he recalled Munson stated that one or not party royalties phone until on the not had there could advised giving difficulty, the some reported title lease amendments another secured royalties” wells “shut-in paid to unitize company authority had been but the production units, replied: royalties me dis- paid, he had оn 160 acre not been “If all, have made a reached; couldn’t another could not be whereupon I cussed it * * just made it. way you Munson know, commented that he didn’t statement authority but “maybe had no to make they I my position not asked for it.” (Emphasis repeated After Rault such a statement Munson that plaintiff and other witnesses had ours.) told him that such made, a demand had been Munson testimony of Mr. have Then we Jo- observed so far understand, as he could Rault, Jr., attorney at law em- seph M. - royalties were with- early August, ployed held provision because of the for 40 acre to obtain results plaintiff's failure units in the leases and the Company’s desire meetings mentioned above. following to increase the unit to 160 acres. Following Rault, complete who made full Mr. that meeting the Rault, witness pursu- interview, detailing what took notes of each ance to Munson’s suggestion, addressed a conference with place, at a testified letter Company, tо the September dated August he in- Mr. Munson 1953, stating that in confirmation of various numerous Munson of the com- formed Mr. conversations with Mr. Munson dealing client, including the plaints failure inquiries with about the well his client production royalties, and Mr. to receive wished given to be certain information, in- what information could Munson obtained cluding “(d) Full details concerning the (after the hour the lateness of view disposition oil and gas produced from p. m.). Another conference held well, including price products September (follow- Mr. Munson for, were whom, sold etc.,” and “(e) Full previously Rault’s return from ing Mr. explanation as to what happened has vacation) ; on that occasion arranged sev- production, from this where they phone calls made eral inter-office are, presently why they were presence the witness in which Mr. tendered, *12 n (cid:127) inquired from reply No Munson with etc.” written was received. Aft- talking exchange “whether er an whom he was several telephone The Texas conver- stand, pany placed Sep- Mr. Munson oh the sations, meeting was scheduled witness, questioned in- not on the matters the matters to further discuss tember 23 letter, respect day testified Mr. Rault with but on quired in the about them, meetings postponed several between but meeting previous thereto that was Munson, previously the matter mentioned request on orders of Mr. at the opinion testimony; officials, comple- referring pending to Munson’s higher well, proc- Company repre- the other then and while two LeBlanc the Rene tion of drilled, present meeting that the Com- sentatives at the Octo- in order ess of present ber were when pany evaluate the field from Court better could tried, that obtaining from case was Mr. Danielson did not were they information eventually testify Beauchamp, held on meeting and Mr. who took the was well. The stand, Bol- by plaintiff, pertaining Mr. questions was asked no attended October Rault, attorney, as well meeting. Mr. that their discussions linger and to take was there secretary who preponderance think that a fair We Toler, notes; present Mr. were also John of the evidence establishes that the trial Planta- representing Valentine attorney an “ * * * judge justified finding in his in the property was included whose tion that the the payment defendant declined Company, Messrs. unit; for The Texas production royalties until such time as the Depart- Beauchamp Gas Munson, an en agreement entered into Geological De- ment, Danielson of large previously production established meeting lasted several partment. The unit non-pay- and that further dis- there was hours, during which ment was a studied and deliberate means up- previously touched matters cussion -plaintiff coerce to accede to the matters, detail, in- and new on, in more proposal for revision of the lease and an question of cluding the enlarged production unit. well, and Rаult 6 No. Bollinger Unit position taken testified up the Taking argument of meeting was that at that Company officials brief, counsel in his failure to the accrued would the defendant designate agent to receive agree failure to royalties because royalties in Paragraph accordance with response unit, pressing to a larger (the appears of the lease clause which of the other lessors in one inquiry made 8) italics in footnote fatal to unit, Mun- statement made suit, reading a mere of the clause relied really if son on, when considered with the remainder of task, they might pay them.” “pushed to clearly paragraph, shows that it was damaging placed this clear-cut testi- contract benefit Despite for The Texas lessee when sales counsel convenience mony, when Com- *13 to royalty rights discharge obligations, mineral its assignments following of by provi- lessee (which given opportunity those must be an per- werе sanctioned to form, lessor; the and that sions) executed the lease its were terms is- free language (“Lessee used the clear forfeiture from or cancellation as to- evident payment”) it is land may (38 acres) withhold included in the present unit, provisions will be invoked we whether its must do so in the light of appear the It would entire optional lessee. with the instrument. We think the trial defense, judge correctly been never ruled that the to us this coming concerning judicial as it did for pleaded specially, ascertainment apply to- dispute and on motion bona fide judgment first time after as to which there is a late; disagreement but be that real too rehearing, good comes for faith between parties; appreciation our may, that the as it effect of stipula- Campany tion evidence, never re- should be The Texas confined to areas of undeter- reason or excuse mined as its matters that clause which are subject lied on of a royalties. legitimate payment dispute, withholding for but that a ruling on an never, time, any at issue involving undisputed Not was there facts should be final. To designated by hold be as contended request agent an counsel for defendant receipt on point would mineral owners for lead to an anomalous, Company attempted ridiculous, if all, situation, for but when the lessor to owners of would royalties” mercy be to “shut-in lessee; interests, payment the latter might employ mineral fractional whatever ownership tactics to the according saw fit obtain tendered concessions or titles, copies their as reflected alterations each in connection with the Company. knowing to the furnished it would which had been never be declared can- made of celled without tender accrued being given Even when first op- portunity after comply judicial de- proceed- 17, ings. November lease forfeited As remaining provisions clared the similarly were 1953, royalty 8, checks mailed Paragraph declaring that if the lease is mineral owners. It any the various is cancelled out to cause the lessee will be judge trial opinion therefore entitled retain our 40 acres around pro- each defendant’s rejected ducing well, properly contention unless there be in force an this clause. respect to with order of the Conservation Commissioner
allocating more than 40 acres well, each disposing of the next two de which event the lessee has the right to Paragraph fenses, based retain both around each well number of acres e., that 7), Order, i. there (footnote must allocated in such we think this is judicial equitable of failure provision ascertainment lessee for the benefit of >625 interest; September applies lessee and cancellations mineral to those dispute Eymard, Eymard and fide as contem Duard T.
involving a bona Emile interеst; plated Eymard, particular Louis mineral the first clause of this JÍ6th J. Cheramie, paragraph. only- September 20, Dolty This conclusion is not reason, interest; February mineral logic consonant and leads with Jieth interest; Plaisance, B. consequences, keeping 'to absurd no but is JÍ6th John Robichaux, and October Dave the intention of the as reflected J. interest. These owners they reading the contract entered into —a JÍ28th interest, which, not hav- many provisions inter fractions of the mineral suit, other, neces- preted ing joined plaintiff in the gives the one with the to each *14 parties defend- sary parties made a sense entire and were that results from the cont Inc., Plantation, ant, and ract.11 as were Valentine adjoin- of lands Bollinger, Donald owners Counsel for defendant has cited no unit. ing plaintiff in the same and included .authority, none, support and we know of proceedings During pendency of these argument that the lease can be canсelled Harvey Pel- the case was non-suited as only plaintiff’s ownership to the extent of Rhea, tier, Peltier, Donald and Donald filing in the mineral time rights at the min- Harvey Peltier had sold a whom JÍ2nd suit, %eths, he since had sold %6ths 1951, 21, May because eral interest on his mineral interest in the land covered by The Tex- acquisition their interest purchasers, the lease and the who were parties men- Company. remaining as suit, made defendants in the did not affirma exception Dave above, tioned with tively seek the cancellation. The record Robichaux, answer, judgment and filed no J. shows that fractional interests were sold default, them against rendered 6, 1949, plaintiff, July as follows: confirmed, rendered was further duly and defendants, Peltier, and in favor of Harvey “to Peltier and Donald all against 14th that, expressed “As 11. In the ease of Hunt also observed Trust v. Crowell We ‘ * ** Code, Corporation, courts &Land Mineral Revised Civil 210 La. our legal give quoted ap effect to all 28 So.2d bound to this Court Ruling аre * * * according provingly true from contracts Law: Case “ parties’ ‘Generally speaking, this ‘intent of all the cardinal rule intent interpretation by the of the words in the to be determined of contracts is to is contract, p parties are clear when these and ex ascertain the intention of the give lead to no absurd conse and to effect to intention if it licit * * consistently legal quences.’ prin 1945. ‘All Article can be done ciples. with * * * agreements interpreted words, are In other the ob clauses other, giving ject construing to each the to be attained the one a con meaning from the act.’ tract is to results entire ascertain sense and in page 955, parties expressed La. at tent of the Article 1955.” ” language page R.C.L., 673. used.’ at So.2d Permanent Supplement Edition, 834, Section 225. opinion observed null, void, for- and in the course of the plaintiff, declaring lease the well- holding predicated Texas that “This cancеlled, only The feited development which recognized theory defend- appealed; the other as to ants, final. fails to amount to a reasonable now become judgment has profit and net affording lessee a complains of the Lastly, the defendant adequate lessor an consideration plain judge allowed fact that the district at variance continuance of the lease is $4,500, attorney’s the sum of tiff fees in contemplation with intent to cancel based on defendant’s failure page 82 So.2d demand, authority of upon under If, cancellation in suits decreeing 30:102,12 contending that LSA-R.S. increase the lease because of failure to deal of that statute rentals, a production so as to increase optional right not to do the do or appli- presented permitting the situation is contract thing that maintain the would recovery and the cation 30:102 of LSA-R.S. option period. beyond the attorney’s fees, logically follows attorney’s allowed This Court has production,, a total failure to rent partial cancellation fees suits for case, re- permit as in a similar this would Realty recent cases: Eota in three leases covery. Co., 225 La. Oil 74 So.2d
Co. v. Carter 1; Grubb, However, 228 La. 82 So.2d have concluded Wier v. we Co., Nunley 229 La. attorney’s v. Shell Oil to dismiss the claim for La. Although alleges case the Wier So.2d fees as non-suit. [228 pointed 5], that, out that 82 So.2d we the defendant re *15 “ * * * fused, demand, consistently despite grant held that written to a Court has lease, is lease main consideration of a cancellation and release of the he ‘the for oil and development attorneys of the land engaged prosecution the has develop either lessee must and that the of this suit entitled to and is reasonable ”, up lease’ diligence, give attorney’s him, or the reasonable fees incurred and that Co., type suit, Alton Oil from Caldwell v. quoting including investigation,, for 139, Inc., research, preparation La. 108 So. legal 161 of pleadings, authorities; additional all citing thereto, numerous other work trial incidental ment, directing 30:102 declares: “Whenever 12. the LSA-R.S. cancellation lapse optional lessee, or lease oil shall having on the records. If an lease * * part given demanding because of failure written been notice can- comply to with the the lessee condition cellation of fails or . refuses to' prevention forfeiture, comply days, within ten les- he shall for be liable days attorney’s ten after the lessor for shall within written to see reasonable part bringing on the of the lessor fee incurred lessor in furnish demand suit acknowledged adjudged. with an instru- have the cancellation the lessor to 629 630 $20,000, loss, not be attorney’s subject would be reasonable fees forfeiture or support part, either in except these whole offered no or evidence judicial allegations. Whitney-Central National See ascertainment that the Lessee 551; 95, Sinnott, perform 66 So. has discharge Bank La. failed to v. 136 598; 498, Franek, obligations its La. 105 So. hereunder has been Alfano v. Villere, given opportunity La. Burglass So. reasonable there- v. Collier, prevent La. after to such loss or forfeiture and Rhodes v. aptly complying discharging Court ob- with and its So.2d wherein this jurisprudence obligations “It is the well-settled as to which Lessee has been served : * * * that, attorneys’ judicially where determined be in cases default.” allowed, proof that are absence fees explicit; This clause is clear and it is paid, or an actually the fees have been parties the law between and should be pay, defeats incurred recov- obligation given full effect force and this Court. ery.” page page 41 So.2d at La. at Article It simply signifies Code. Civil parties clear intent of the to be that judgment assigned, reasons For the the lease is when earned the lessee has by non-suiting appealed from is amended production that, thereafter, secured fees, and, attorney’s plaintiff’s claim for not it lost shall or forfeited without first amended, it is affirmed. as thus judicial ascertainment of the oppor- giving breach and then lessee an McCALEB, (dissenting). Justice tunity perform obligation.1 its finding with the no issue I take While policy preclude parties Public does not Texas that the failure majority contracting majority thus and the does timely Company to Rather, place decision on basis. not its not I do sub- justified, royalties was majority appears to be view that lack of reason- that its the view scribe the lease is Paragraph 8 of enforceable payment au- withholding grounds able is, restricted degree in a —that mineral lease. forfeiture thorizes the court there cases where finds that provides, in lease of8 Paragraph dispute between the a bona fide part: alleged breach the lessee relative that, oil, sulphur it is gas, obligations. And its reasoned production of
“After
timely pay
produc-
secured
the failure
been
from since
has
other
instant matter
was not
hereby, this
shall
tion
covered
land
pay delay
Paragraph
drill or
failure to
rentals
the lease which
Compare
4 of
see’s
primary
during
term.
termination
immediate
provides
*16
production)
(before
les
forfeiture
632’,
strictly
grounds,
reasonable
the lessee
construed and will not be main
founded on
provisions,
judicial ascertain-
tained in the absence of clear
cannot avail itself of the
provision.
leaving
no doubt as to the
of their
ment
People’s
exercise.
State Bank v. United
re-writing
This conclusion effects
Co.,
Fidelity Guaranty
States
&
164 La.
pro-
Paragraph 8 a
by adding
the lease
Ry.
So.
v. Texas
Schultz
& P.
apply unless lessee’s
viso that
it will not
Co.,
La.
ception principle forth in to the set Article “Legal agree-
1945 of Civil Code upon law
ments effects of
parties, parties abrogate none but the can contrary, modify them”. On the no ab-
surdity
from applying
results
the conditions
instances where has been se- June may cured and lessee be said to have Evidently, stipulation earned the lease.
of this clause resulted from a realization summary
by the forfeiture
for acts of omission the lessee would be
unjust securing pro- lessee of necessarily
duction great involved expense part.
effort on its
Finally, it tois be borne in mind that the forfeitures; they
law does not favor are