*1 v. AMERADA PETROLEUM MILES et al. CORP.
No. 4756. Appeals of Texas.
Court Civil El Paso. 6, 1950.
Dec.
Rehearing March 1951. Denied *2 years
minor 9
Liggins,
of
and Evan
age.
minor two
of
the date of
On
conveyance
the
to
and
lease Amerada
the
to Miles
is no
hereinafter referred to there
but
the said minors
title
n
father,
interest as heirs of their
Liggins. Appehant claimed under a
J.
J.
conveyance subsequent to
lease from
said
n
the
min-
minors to said
said
eral interest
There is no
said tract.
conveyance con-
but that the said
veyed to
interest as the
Miles such
had in
underlying
the
the lots in
question it was executed.
In
date
requisites
making
appellee
the lease
all
to
complied
appli-
law
with as
were
to
Francis,
Vinson, Elkins,
Hous-
Weems &
by
thereof, or-
guardian,
cation
notice
ton,
appellant.
for
arithorizing
der of the
Court
Probate
Okl.,
Tulsa,
G.
Harry
Page,
D.
John
lease, report of
the consummation
Dallas,
Victoria, Kilgore
Stofer,
Kilgore,
&
and
con-
order
the Probate Court
Wilson, Tyler,
appellees.
for
Gist &
by
firming
filing
and
same
bond
stated,
guardian. As has been
PRICE, Chief Justice.
appellant.
true as to the sale
Miles, Jr.,
appeal by C. A.
This
an
by
making
The
mineral leases Guard-
Appellant,
hereinafter
called
by
governed
ian of
Estate of minors is
Court of Victoria
judgment
the District
Ann.Civ.St,
Art.
Vernon’s
which was
Amerada Petroleum
County in favor of
force
this lease was executed.
Defendant
Walker.
Corporation and Ross
making
appellee,
In
lease to
Company
be here-
will
Petroleum
Amerada
stated,
respects
has
law was in all
Appellee,
to as
and defend-
referred
inafter
notice, authorization,
complied with as to
ant
Walker Walker.
Ross
required by
and
confirmation
bond as
said
plaintiff sought
Appellant as
to recover
Article. The
contained a
an
from
undivided mineral in-
Amerada
½
unitization
“4.
follows:
Les-
following
terest
and
see,
hereby
option,
given
right
its
-at
property,
to-wit:
Situated
Victoria
pool
acreage
and
or combine
Texas,
County,
1 and
and
any portion
this lease
block 3 of the W. Brown Addition
J.
land,
with other
lease or leases in
im-
Bloomington,
Town of
Victoria
mediate,
thereof,
vicinity
when in Lessee’s
Texas,
County,
according
map
ato
of said
necessary
judgment it is
to do
advisable
pleading.
referred to in
addition
properly
develop
op-
so in order
recovery
judgment
denied
½
compliance
said
erator
interest free from a mineral lease
mineral
spacing rules of the Railroad Commission
by appellee.
claimed
thereon
authority,
of Texas or other lawful
or when
undisputed;
case are
facts
would,
Lessee,
do
presented
appli-
is the correct
problem
promote the conservation of
to the facts.
of the law
cation
may
under and that
in and
premises,
from said
to be into
is two
property involved
town lots
exceeding
not
depth
or units
acres
having a
a unit
each
fifty feet in
width
each
oil,
160 acres each
distillate and 640
parallel
of 140
lines
feet.
between
J. J.
gas. Lessee
Ap-
each for
shall execute
source of
acres
is the common
title.
Liggins
writing
identifying
instrument
under an oil and
lease ex-
pellee claims
pooled
describing
acreage. The
August, 1947,
entire
day
25th
ecuted
acreage
pooled
into tract
unit
Liggins, a
shall
of Frank
James
treated,
except
pay-
any
purposes
for all
minerals or
of them
paying quantities.”
ment of
duced in
unit,
pooled
in this
as if it were included
yet
The minors here
involved have
*3
production
If
on the
lease.
is found
attained
age
years.
the
of 21
the date
On
pooled
if
acreage, it shall
treated as
of the
in
lease
2 years
age,
1947one
of
was
lease,
the
whether
duction is had from this
9.
theory
the other
of unitization in
or
the
well
wel's be located on
40 acre tracts must be that a
well wells
by
In lieu of the
covered
this lease
not.
any part
on
of the
produce
tract will
specified,
Lessor
elsewhere herein
parts
from all
of the tract
unitized.
a unit so
receive on
from
shall
Where
isoil
from a unitized tract
royalty
only
portion
pooled
such
part
upon
which well has
no
stipulated
as the amount of his
herein
probably production
been drilled there is
acreage placed
royalty
or his
in
unit
unit
such
but
from a well thereon.
acreage
on an
bears to the
interest therein
Strong
placed
reliance is
by
appel
pooled
particular
acreage
total
in the
lant on the case of
et al.
Cheesman
v.
invo'ved.”
unit
Amerada
Corp.,
Petroleum
Tex.Civ.App.,
Appellee held leases on several lots bor-
227 S.W.2d
as sustaining
claim
dering
lots in con-
on
and
that in the instant
by
case
lease
troversy;
substan-
the leases all contained
guardian to Amerada was void on account
might
tially
provision.
here
It
pooling agreement
contained there
primary term in the
that
mentioned
thought
in.
It
a
brief
discussion of
guardian
appellee
from the
was
lease
closely
case
related
help
will
in the deter
year.
a term of one
mination of the bearing the case has on the
instant case. In the case of Amerada Pe
In accordance
unitization
Corporation
troleum
Cheesman,
Tex.Civ.
in
clause
this lease
the other
and in
leases
App., 223
(Wr.
S.W.2d
Den.),
74
the title
appe'lee unitized these two lots with ad
partition
and
of lots 19 and 20 of Block
jacent property upon
held oil and
which it
2, Cameron’s Addition to the town of
leases,
being
the area of the unit
about
Bloomington was
involved. Amerada
pay
acres. Production
39
oil and
claimed the entire mineral
interest
unit,
quantities
developed
was
ing
by
virtue
guard
of lease from the
being
producing
three
oil wells there
there
ian
Skarda,
of Paul Alois
a minor. This
on
on but none
these
were drilled
wells
lease contained a pooling agreement
controversy. Appellant
same or about
the same as the
that the unitization
claims
agreement in the instant case. It was held
lease
Amerada’s lease
only
an undivided
void,
beyond
was
one-half interest in the lots. D. C. Chees-
to authorize
Probate Court
acquired
man had
by
n
and 'held
virtue of a
a'l
interest
a one-half
undivided interest in the
conveyed
by
to him
deed from
were
n
working interest of the oil
n
gas.
that he
interest ab
guardian;
action
trial court was
assailed
ap-
any purported lease
solutely free of
partition
ordering a
in kind of the two lots.
5 of
which
Article
pellee. Section
Amerada was
by
awarded
the trial court
giving
relied
was
n
working
all of the
interest in lot 20 and
ap-
to make the
'Cheesman
of it in lot
19. The
follows:
shall
is as
“No
pellee
of the trial court was affirmed
writ
beyond
ward shall
time that the
extend
by
error
Supreme
denied
Court.
twenty-one years
unless at
become
shall have discovered
case
time
lessee
Cheesman v.
that
Amerada Petro-
lease,
Corp., reported
specified in the
leum
are
Tex.Civ.App.,
829, 831,
minerals,
upon the
any of such
stated
S.W.2d
arose in the
fol-
lowing
which event the
manner. D.
in such
C.
sought
Cheesman
long
remain in full force so
as and obtained from the
shall
Railroad Commis-
reported
case before mentioned
in 223 S.W.
Rule
19 under
on lot
permit
to drill
sion
against
to 2d 74 and it was
spacing rule
determined as
exception to the
37 as an
title,
that
and such
noted
Cheesman
it had such
is to
prevent confiscation.
proposi
case title was
localized
lot 20. The
involved in
lot
19 was the
this lot
223 tion
Cheesman, reported in
Chief
Archer
Amerada
Justice
part
had no
set this Amerada
title was 'based in
filed suit
Amerada
74.
S.W.2d
provisions
judgment was the
of Art. 4192that
oil lease
no
A
permit
favorable
aside.
judg
should extend
the time that
permit. This
canceling
rendered
age
Civil ward shall become
unless
the Court
affirmed
ment was
at that
have
provided therein it was
discovered
lessee
Appeals, but was
*4
specified
permit to such minerals as are
in the lease
a
apply for
prejudice to
without
any
premises
or
of such
judg
minerals
19 and 20. The
a well on lots
drill
quanti
partition
paying
described in such
in
of the
lease
affirmed because
ment was
ties.
minor
the relevant
had
rules of
The
at
time
after
spacing
19 and 20
of lots
years.
age
The
promul attained
instant
had been
Commission
Railroad
distinguishable
case is to an extent
un
held an
claimed and
gated. Amerada
Judge
case before
that
and the
Archer
f interest
said
one-ha1
divided
neither of
case
gas
involved
this
by virtue of
oil
under
majority.
has attained his
a minor
guardian of
which
from the
lease
privilege of unitiz
give it
purported to
Smith,
The case of Brown v.
lands,
and it had
ing
with
area
425,
43,
nature
Tex.
defines the
S.W.2d
ad
with
purportedly unitized this lease
rights
sepa
of the
where owners of
created
opinion
the course of the
jacent lands. In
joint
pool
signed
rate tracts
a
lease with a
“We do
Archer said:
Chief Justice
ing agreement.
It is there in substance
in the lease
clause
that the
believe
conveyance by
that
a lease is a
such
or,
valid,
was
Skarda
each of the
each lessor to
other lessors
all, beyond
time the ward became
if at
royalties.
of an undivided interest in the
years
has
twenty-one
age. The minor
giving
a
a
It must be where
lessee in lease
majority.
his
now attained
power
property
to unitize
of his
4192,
Ann.
Art.
Vernon’s
5 of
“Section
of the other les
lessor
ex-
provided:
such
Civ.St.
‘No
that
that such exercise
sors exercise
beyond the
that the ward shall
tend
manner;
power operates in the same
at
twenty-one
age,
unless
become
conveyance
is,
a
each lessor to
as
shall have discovered
time the lessee
an undivided
other lessors
the unit of
lease,
specified in the
such minerals
are
royalties.
In
in the
with
interest
line
minerals, upon
premises
any
or
of such
Smith, supra,
and cited
case
Brown
lease,
in which event
in such
described
Thomason,
is the case of Veal
therein
long
remain in
same shall
force
full
341,
138Tex.