*1 Producing et al. Co. Griffith, v. Texas Gulf 8, 1953
June
2d 447
34 Adv.
65 So.
No. 38712
S.
July 3, 1953
35 Adv.
15S.
Ill Landman William H. Chill, Bernard W. Bonner B. appellant. Gordon, for Jackson, *7 Robert G. Livingston, Prentiss, Callender, and Hall & for Griffith Columbia, appellees, Boy B. C. E. Watson. *9 Garner W. Green Green, and Garner W. Jr., Jackson, appellee, for B. Mrs. Geraldine Martin.
Brief for appellant. *16 appellee, Martin. Mrs. Geraldine B.
Brief for
ORIGINAL OPINION Holmes, J. *18 Magee husband, and her
On November Estella 16,1939, gas, Magee, an oil, Jr. Thrift, Houston executed E. to J. County, on land in Davis and mineral lease Jefferson Mississippi, describing follows: in the lease as same all of the and
“48 acres more or less. The same land September recorded land described in deed dated 1938 3, page Davis in Book 43 at 564 deed records Jefferson Milloy County, Mississippi, to Estella et al from Anna Township Magee north, 9 as the of Section 33 SE% NEi/4 range 16 certain of that 19 and the south 8 acres west, of section in the east acres side of NW% SE^ township range in Davis west, 19 all Jefferson 3, north, County, Mississippi.” “unless” lease
The lease was what known as an is term of long years, as ten “and primary and was for a produced gas, from or other mineral is oil, thereafter as neither The lease contained a said hereunder.” land majeure pooling agreement ity valid- nor a force clause. The inception questioned. is not On of the in lease its assigned the to E. lease 1940, Thrift, October J. Jr. 7, merger by corporate Company, which and Fobs Oil corporate Producing change Texas name became Gulf Company, company to the and the latter succeeded owner- ship On the same date that aforesaid lease. November 16, 1939, lease was on executed, towit, Magee, Magee her Houston husband, Estella and lessors, conveyed subject an Martin, lease, to B. to said G-eraldine gas interest and other oil, one-half in the undivided in the land described in said lease. minerals July Magee 1,1944, On Estella her Hous- husband, and conveyed Magee, Longino ton F. an Charles undivided gas one-half interest the oil, and other minerals in reserving right said land, to execute future leases right money delay thereon and the to all bonus rent- subject als. Thereafter, to like reservations as con- conveyance tained in the aforesaid to him, Charles F. Longino conveyed to Dewitt Smith on March 26, 1948, an undivided mineral interest in said land, 1/48 Hays H. R. on March an undivided 26,1948, mineral 1/48 July interest in said conveyed and on land, 15, 1949, Dewitt Smith subject
to W. J. Morris, to like an reservations, undivided mineral interest in said land. % 1/16 4/320 by The land covered the aforesaid is lease located in large the Gwinville Gas which Field, a embraces area Simpson of sippi, in Jefferson land Davis and Missis- Counties, production proven gas which came into as a year field in the 1944. authority
Pursuant vested in the State Oil and by Chap. Board Chap. Gas 117 of the Laws of 1932 and Laws of 193-6, Board, its orders of August August August 30, 1945, 28, 1946, 11, 1947, and September finding necessary pre- 11, 1947, it so to todo *19 protect vent rights waste and to the correlative and opportunities gas of owners of common the source of supply, adopted regulations applicable and rules to the providing every gas Gwinville Gas Field, that well drilling should consisting be located on unit a at least contiguous upon acres which no other 320 surface drill- producible ing determining is or well the effi- located, drainage gas contiguous area well cient of each to 320 be application providing for for acres, surface the and the permits providing granting of for the to alloca- drill, gas upon filing well tion of allowables for each with approval plat showing for a the board location of the acreage assignable defining and the to it, the well an person right the who the owner as has to drill into and produce pool appropriate from a field and to or the 132 another, and himself
production or himself for either for reports. completion filing providing of well the for and Texas By the 1947, 12, dated December instrument in- Company, Producing the lease here holder of Gulf contiguous as non- lands, and other lessees volved, Company, Refining operators, and the Humble Oil and operator, entered contiguous as lands, a leaseholder agreement pool as combine their leases and to into an No. rights as gas 320 acres known Unit a unit of into to by leases are embraced said covered in so as lands 14, far reciting and Refin- Oil that the'Humble therein therein, pooled gas completed the ing Company well on a had No. 1 well, Hubbard, et al, known the unit as J. S. operation under providing should be well the said supervision charge, of the control, exclusive Refining Company. Humble Oil and Refining Humble Oil and 21, 1947, November On applied Company 1947, November for, 22, had and on stating gas granted, permit drill a well, a was Town- 33, in the thereof of Section exact location NE% County. ship Range Davis 19 Jefferson north, west, 9 ap- January with and there was filed 10, 1948, On containing plat by proved 14, No. the Board a of Unit embracing contiguous of the acres and NE% Range Township 19 west, north, 83, of Section SE% by the aforesaid lease the land covered or 40 acres of by originally executed 1939, 16, dated November Magee, Magee her Houston husband, Estella J. E. covered embracing eight other acres not Jr., but Thrift, by said lease. January completion report dated 1948 was 16,
A well January by Board on 23, received filed with and January completion showing on 10, 1948, permit. pursuant said There- on said drilled unit well applicable to said well were set allowables after, January beginning 26, 1948. Board transpired during primary foregoing term All the *20 lease dated November and 16, 1939, the aforesaid of prior Cnap. to the effective Laws date of of the application 1948. on on Thereafter, 23, 1950, June Superior Company,'one Oil interested lessees, of the hearing pursuant and after notice, a the Board drilling adjudging entered an order that the aforesaid legally had Unit No. 14 ordering been therefore established and integration embraced interests therein. said into
The Geraldine B. enter Martin declined to a voluntary pooling agreement in to the which as lands she owned a mineral and has declined to interest, % accept royalty payments tender under the lease of November The well located on land 16, 1939. unit is by than other that covered lease of November 16, 1939. Magee her husband,
On November 26,1949, Estella Magee, Roy gas, Houston executed to an oil, E. Watson and mineral lease on an undivided interest in the % by originally lands same covered the aforesaid lease executed to E. which lease so Thrift, Jr., J. executed Roy assigned by him on E. Watson was December 17, 1949to B. to the extent of C. Griffith a interest therein. % expiration years After the ten from November 16, appellees the date of the Thrift and after the 1939, lease, Roy acquired from E. Watson and B. Griffith Estella C. Magee Magee, and her aforesaid husband, Houston appellees dated their 1949, lease bill November filed 26, chancery praying adjudication an the said asking, Thrift had terminated its terms, lease upon have same cancelled as a cloud their asserted a leasehold under aforesaid title to estate lease of subsequent original November In the 1949. bill and 26, pleadings, Producing Company the Texas Gulf parties numerous other were named as to the defendants Through among B. dis- them Geraldine Martin. action, controversy filed, the resolved itself a claimers into suit Producing Company between Gulf on the one Texas Roy hand, Watson, E. B. and Geraldine Griffith, C. *21 134 hearing Upon case, on hand. the Martin the other
B. by Roy prayed granted for E. the the chancellor relief by and B. and Geraldine B. Martin Griffith, Watson C. in her from the Texas Gnlf and decree cross-bill, this appeal. During Producing prosecutes Company this Roy pendency appeal, appellee the of this the Watson E. Roy the has died and this cause as to E. Watson said revived in name of Lorraine Watson, been the Mrs. B. Roy will and testament of Wat-
executrix of last E. the deceased. son, (1) appellant appeal on
The contends this that jurisdiction court was of this trial without cause because necessary (2) parties, and of the absence of that Magee deed from Estella and her husband to Charles Longino royalty mineral deed not a F. was a deed by Longino the execution that, and his therefore, assignees pooling of to the amendment Thrift lease rights of valid exercise their as was a owners purported gas, in and the the fee minerals, oil, by Magee lease executed Estella and her mineral husband Roy (3) to was of no effect, E. Watson that November did not Thrift lease dated 1939 terminate 16, expiration primary of its term on 16, at the November thereby land for that covered the reason had been 1949, drilling previously established included in an unit, towit, January gas and that 14, 10, No. since 1948 was Unit produced production being and that therefrom, such the lease and from land covered continued was in force. the lease the contention the trial think that court
We was jurisdiction of this cause because of the absence without necessary parties is untenable. This was a suit to Any quiet not or confirm clouds and title. remove appellees part on affect the title intention wholly parties disclaimed. Moreover, is absent may against proceed the claimant clouds, to remove suits any may asserting claim, an who be several adverse one necessary join it is as defendants and in such cases only asserting parties are an adverse claim or those who record evidence of title should be cancelled hold as such Miss. McLendon v. McGee, 712, as a cloud. So. Chancery p. Practice, 113, 2d Sec. 115. 725; Ed., Griffith’s primary purpose adjudi The of this suit is to obtain an expira of the termination of the Thrift lease at the cation primary tion of its term and to cancel same as a cloud upon the asserted title of claimants insofar as it affects the adverse of named and we think claims defendants *22 proceed right against the the such of claimants had asserting were an adverse We are of the those as opinion, claim. that the not without therefore, trial court was jurisdiction of this cause because of the absence of neces sary parties. appellant of the Thrift
The contention
that the
contin
16,
lease dated November
was extended and
1939,
beyond
primary
during
ued in force
its
term
its
because
primary
prior
Chap.
term and
to the effective date of
256
by
part
of the
of the land covered
said
1948,
Laws of
a
drilling
to-wit,
unit,
lease was included in an established
the
Oil
14,
Unit No.
under the rules and orders of
State
being
production
and
is
had
Board,
and
was and
Gas
drilling
from land within the
unit of which the leased
part,
forms a
is
insofar
it
the leased
land
sound
as
affects
the
within the unit and must be sustained under
land
prior
holding
produc
of
that
Court,
decisions
this
such
within
tion
deemed to be from the leased land
the unit.
is
grounds
need not detail the
of attack made
We
various
appellees upon
validity
the
the
of the establishment
they
of the unit and the effect
since
have been
thereof,
adversely
appellees in
decided
to the
of the
contentions
prior
our said
decisions. California
v. State Oil
Co.
Supe
Board,
542;
200 Miss.
2d
Green v.
824,
Gas
So.
Company,
Superior
Company
rior
“And we are the effect of what drilling given of unit of a area establishment the a prevention drilling of more than one well of the the necessarily rights pool the oil the thereon is gas rights area, such and all the mineral in lessees only any mean the oil other result would that because any gas receive that the unit well could lessee drilled and portion only gas produced therefrom, and of the of the % particular under the on of the tract the minerals owners any portion of is drilled which the well could receive only theory royalties upon production, since is from it gas and of all other interests of the oil and lessees that royalty pooled have with Dale all other interests been they production participate from can in the tract that Dale well.” overruling suggestion opinion in of error In the Company supra, Superior Beery, we further v. said: Oil present holding “The effect decision, drilling pool interests all unit is establishment thereby of all to extend the terms leases in the unit and necessary light logical step in in is a then effect, giving foregoing cases, and is essential of all *23 practical In brief, to the establishment of the unit. effect equivalent production production on the unit the of on is . ” appellee’s land presented, question to whether however, is as The only incorporated production from No. which 14, Unit the primary of part extended the term land, of a the leased the to of leased 16, 1939, November as all the lease of unit. deal or without the We with whether within land particular only question arises of the facts it out the as appellant, by agreement with other The of this case. contiguous approval the lands and with of of lessees pursuant acting to the author Board, Oil and Gas State by Chap. ity 1932 it of the Laws of and in 117 vested
137 establishment Chap. the effected 1936, of of the Laws 305 say, incor drilling 14, which to Unit No. unit, a that is of by only Thrift porated covered the the 48 acres of 40 acres pool all or unitize was to of which the result and lease, per Only well one was unit within the area. interests contigu consisting 320 of the unit mitted be drilled on to drainage well of such the efficient acres, and ous surface regulations the of the and was rules determined under contiguous surface and Board to be State Oil Gas on land other the drilled on unit The well was acres. on issuance The leased embraced therein. than the application land drilling permit the well, drill of to the the approval filing completion of the and well, of the fixing plat for allowables the the and the of of unit area, primary during transpired term of the the the well all prior under the the well, Thrift lease. Production from production from Court, deemed decisions this was part well within the No other of the leased land unit. If drilled within the unit. could be on the leased land production unit well held to continue from the is to be to the 8 which are outside force the lease as acres mile from located about three-fourths a unit and may force acres, other 40 then lessee hold the lease in indefinitely any obligation to as to said 8 acres without may pru except required thereon, drill be a such as development operator protection dent in the of the drainage, any pay obligation land from and without to delay during pri thereon the remainder of rentals mary any obligation lease, term without pay royalties compensation or other or benefits royalty Appellant or or holders. lessors, mineral has not sought exception spacing regulations an under the incorporate drill did acres, on said not said acres drilling expiration unit in another until after the primary lease. term of the The 8 acres were not drained production and there the unit no well, was therefrom Appellant during primary during term. elected *24 138
primary incorporate drilling term to the 40 acres in a unit and to the leave out. To hold acres that the lease indefinitely was continued force in as to the 8 acres with payment royalty out the of or or rentals other benefits therefrom the as result of the establishment of unit the incorporating compulsory pooling the the acres and resulting when therefrom, no well was drilled the on apply leased would tobe our land, conservation laws in guaranty person violation of the constitutional that no deprived property process shall be of his without due of prior upholding law. The basis of our decisions in the drilling compulsory pool establishment of and units the ing resulting therefrom that is a mineral owner is not deprived by property right of a valuable failure to by the produce gas oil or from his land in the unit a well permitted equivalent, thereon when he is to the receive Superior Company from unit thereof Beery, the well. In Oil v. 2d 115, 63 So. the said: Court foregoing para- “It follows from what is said in the deprived graph a land or mineral owner not of is right any property process in violation of due valuable produce gas of failure to oil or of law because from when thereon, tract of land a well he is allowed his to equivalent adja- from thereof a unit well on receive public policy of the in furtherance of the State land cent recog- of its natural resources. in the conservation We of such laws in the absence enacted in the exer- nize that powers police appellee would State, cise of reversionary his been entitled interest have production 1949, after December if no of 29, minerals from gas mineral had a well on his or other was oil, Chapter But made it 305, acres. Laws of 1936, mineral ‘duty prorate regulate gas Board supply production from each common source of well protection public private interest, . for . ., rights opportunities adjust the correlative ’ gas supply. . . . in a common owner of source each *25 upon regulations are based and laws conservation These right given having theory under a individual that an the right giv- higher may of even exercise the circumstances ing up public right in interest of the the the asserted philosophy of the moratorium was the Such welfare. mortgages and of deeds of holders under which statutes right giving de- the foreclose in the unto them trust, the payment were denied indebtedness, of an of a fault right requirements upon compliance with certain to do so security. provided of for in the contract not sovereignty, police power the “An attribute of such as no resources, natural needs of the to conserve its state power exercise; its is sanction for valid it a constitutional government.”' of inherent in the existence a and were to be fair conservation enacted laws Our justice equity parties do and to all reasonable and to contemplated think it was not concerned, we that and authorizing drill- under ing the of the statutes establishment compulsory pooling resulting the therefrom units and production the of the the that establishment unit and therein, from a on the well land other than leased land leased land the should affect the without unit. Particu- larly production true because if the is this from such unit keep indefinitely were be held to well the lease in force to the deprived land unit, as leased without the the lessor would right be of on to drill the leased land with- any deprived royalties, out of unit, or rentals, interpretation, benefits therefrom. Under such if a lease segregated aggregating 1,000 covered tracts acres and 40 placed drilling produc- acres thereof were in a unit, should be tion had on land within the unit but not on the might indefinitely be continued in force lease acres, the beyond primary 1,000 term toas the entire acres, royalties, any or rentals, other benefits to the without royalty owners, mineral as to the or 960 acres lessor, give To this effect the unit. establish- without unit under the facts this case would, ment opinion, our be a guaranty violation the constitutional person deprived that no property shall be of his without process due of law. It is our conclusion, therefore, the Thrift lease was under not, ease, facts of this beyond primary continued in force its term as to acres therein described, but that toas said 8 acres, said expiration lease primary terminated at the term of the lease. expiration primary
After the term of the Thrift the 8 lease, acres covered said were lease unitized with other Appellees, lands included in Unit No. 41. how- *26 question any do not ever, or seek to cancel unitization becoming expiration or made after effectual the of the primary only term of the Thrift lease, and hence we com- rights parties respect ment that the with 8 to the by governed acres embraced in Unit No. 41 will be the expressed by opinion. views in this us The conclusions herein before reached render it un- necessary for tous construe the instrument executed to by Longino Magee F. Charles husband, Estella her Magee. Houston the
For hereinbefore forth, reasons set the decree of 8 court below is affirmed as to the in the acres embraced lease, the Thrift as to the 40 acres therein embraced judgment the decree of court below is reversed and appellant here for in with entered accordance prayer appeal cross-bill. be its The costs should taxed against appellant against one-half and one-half appellees. part part.
Affirmed and reversed in except part. All concur Hall, J., Justices who took no ERROR SUGGESTION OF OPINION ON C. J. McGehee, painstaking given consideration careful and
haveWe appel- suggestions of error filed on behalf to the appellee, Producing Company, and the Gulf lant, Texas reached the conclusion B. and we have Geraldine Martin, suggestions should be overruled. that both of error necessity urges upon appellant, however, The us by construe instrument executed this Court that Magee, Magee to husband, and her Houston Estella July yield Longino, 1, dated and we 1944, F. Charles clarify holding our that the decree of the in order to this affirmed here in- below should as to 8 acres court be volved. Roy appellees, E. Griffith, C.
The Watson B. original by sought bill filed in their this cause cancel upon lease dated November as a cloud 16, 1939 the Thrift the leasehold interest under the asserted title to their Roy Magee E. executed Watson Estella lease Magee, dated Houston November husband, 26, 1949, her gas covering undivided interest in the and other an oil, % involved. In in the entire acres here minerals necessary appellees prevail, a it show order to was Myres, perfect themselves, Miss. title in Nicholson v. *27 had ter 154 and that the Thrift lease 282, So. 441, they doing in 8 as to the acres This succeeded minated. by Magees, in the of aforesaid the execution the unless Longino, divested themselves strument to Charles F. had convey leasing rights in them of ing which remained after the to Geraldine in the minerals an undivided interest % they opinion not so B. Martin. are of the that had We rights leasing such for the reason divested themselves of by instrument executed them to Charles F. the conveyance royalty Longino and not mineral was a a validly Magees the reserved in the deed, and that same right execute future leases. the brings This us to consideration of a the nature of the by Magees Longino instrument executed the to Charles P. July under date of This 1, 1944. instrument is headed “Royalty excluding signa- Deed.” The instrument, acknowledgment tures and thereof, is as follows: DEED
“ROYALTY ALL MEN “KNOW BY THESE PRESENTS: Milloy Magee “THAT Stella and husband Houston Magee for in and consideration sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) by paid DOLLARS, to us in hand cash P. Charles Longino receipt hereby-acknowledged, of which is do hereby grant, bargain, convey sell, and unto the said Longino assigns P. Charles unto heirs his for- ever, SUBJECT, to all of con- HOWEVER, terms, and reservations hereinafter AN UN- mentioned, ditions (%) DIVIDED One half in interest and to all of the oil, gas upon following other in, under and minerals, in County, described lands situated Jefferson Davis in Mississippi: of State “NE)4 Township Range of section 33, 9 North SE% and the West on the east south 8 acres of that certain 16 acres Township side section 3 SE^A NWVt Range containing 8 North West all 48 acres more or less. convey
“It is intention Grantors herein to presents they convey by pre- these do these sents 24 mineral acres. grantors expressly
“The herein reserve themselves assigns, right their heirs or the exclusive said lease any part gas purposes, or lands, for oil and thereof, upon part without interference or hindrance grantee, grantee assigns; his or heirs and the his herein, assigns any heirs or part shall never be entitled to receive paid of the consideration,, cash or otherwise, or to paid, gas any mining be oil for lease or heretofore here- covering any part after executed said or land, thereof, *28 assigns, grantee, ever en- heirs or be nor shall the his any delay part to any defer rentals of to receive titled any provided operations drilling the commencement of assigns, grantee or heirs his lease; herein, and the required such delivery join and in the execution shall not be any mining any covering gas land, said or lease of oil and convey good there- part title lessee in order to thereof, expressly grantors herein that the PROVIDED, under; gas mining grantee and that no oil with covenants covering or land, the above be executed lease shall ever grantors any part to the that shall reserve thereof, royalty, assigns, less than one- heirs and their as herein, produced eighth gas and from the oil and saved all deemed this covenant shall be a and that said land running land. with the covenant parties hereto intention of “It is the assigns, grantee shall entitled or be his herein, heirs, (%) gas run one-half of all oil hereunder receive and/or royalty interest reserved under and the credit of to by mining any gas lease in oil and now force virtue of gas any covering said and under land, oil and effect and covering mining executed said or land, hereafter lease grantee any any part thereof; event the and herein, assigns, deemed shall be the owner of and or his heirs part gas produced all oil and to receive entitled shall be any part land, said or thereof. from saved and AND TO HOLD above described HAVE “TO together property property interest with all appurtenances belong- rights singular hereunto Longino, ing, his heirs, said Charles F. unto assigns forever. hereby they the said Charles F. covenant with
“And Longino and defend will forever that we warrant rights and the described lands herein the above title to conveyed against lawful claims all whatever. day signatures July, on this 1 our 1944.”
“Witness *29 construing In aforesaid the it instrument, is nec essary recognized under well rules of construction the be same construed a the as and that the intent of whole, parties gathered unambigu plain thereto be from the and language employed. page ous therein In 26 C. 328, J. S., following: we find the “A deed must be construed separating parts. as whole, a without it into its formal primarily gathered The intent must be from a fair con language of sideration the entire instrument and the em ” ployed . therein . . We held in the case Goff v. 122 Miss. Avent, 86, meaning language So. 134,that when the is be to deter- by parties, expressed mined the intent Court, of the they govern. Again in the words used, have must we said in the case of Gulf I. R. v. S. Co. Patten, al, et construing Miss. 756, 178 as “In 468, So. follows: parties sought deeds, intention of the is to be effect- but this uated, course, intention must be found in the language of given instrument; so that effect be must possible if to each item of the written and no contents, rejected may long item shall be stricken or so it as be harmonized with the other items.”
Applying these rules of in construction to the difficulty strument under review, we find no in determin ing royalty conveyance the instrument be a a not conveyance. parties mineral The themselves have denom “royalty granting inated the a instrument deed.” The expressly subject of the clause instrument is made terms, conditions, and reservations thereinafter men grantors tioned. The instrument in the ex reserves right clusive to lease the lands oil therein described for gas purposes. money paid All bonus leases for future delay any gas and all rentals under oil and lease on grantors. lands are granting reserved to the In future grantors required expressed leases, the are under the royalty terms of the instrument to reserve as than not less gas produced of all of the oil and and saved from the Ys expressly It is land. declaredun the instrument is that it parties grantee the intention of the thereto that the shall gas entitled be to receive one-half of all oil run to and/or royalty by of the the credit interest reserved under and any gas subsequently virtue oil lease in force or and/or granted. it is manifest from Thus the entire instrument plain language parties and the thereof that the intended grantee royalty said instrument vest in the a not a mineral interest. opinion
are,We therefore, that at the time of by Magees Roy execution of the lease to E. Wat- Magees son, dated 1949, November were vested 26, *30 rights leasing respect the with with to the mineral in- subject prior terest therein the described, Thrift lease, that the since Thrift lease has terminated to the as by Magees here the involved, 8 acres lease so executed the Roy E. Watson dated November 16, 1949, should be held to valid lease and it is be as to said a 8 acres. suggestions Accordingly, both the of error herein filed are overruled.
Suggestions of error overruled. except part. All Hall, Justices concur who J., no took specially concurring: J. Ethridge, original sugges- I concur with the decision and that on following my tion of error. The states understanding of what we decide.
Appellant, Producing Company, argues Texas Gulf incorporated the 40 acre tract was that, when into Unit producing by drilling and that unit became 14, the production not well on the 40 acre this a unit tract, con- only production not under stituted the leased lands with- preserved fixed also the term unit, in but including under the estate entire lessee’s lease that in the lease tract under outside of 8 acre the unit.
146 habendum clause the usual and under
At common law during gas producing well one lease, in an oil primary any part continue the lease will term on entirety. fixing provision The in effect as an lease ordinarily indivisible. considered term of the lease is held that have the Louisiana Courts And in cases several compul- incorporated part in is leased a lands where sory producing in the unit not well is drilled and a unit, production continues such therein, leased lands on the unit and outside the lands in effect as to both lease Company, 211 Shell Oil Inc., Hunter Inc. v. Co., unit. Danciger (1947); & 2d Blanc v. Oil 31 10 Le La. So. 893, (1950); v. 49 2d Smith So. 463, Ref. 218 La. Co., April (D. Supp. La.,O. F. C. W. 463, Carter Oil Co., Gray 1952). 2d 234 W. also v. S. See 10, Cameron, 1950). (Ark. dealt with cases orders However, those ex the pressly provided of Conservation which Louisiana Commissioner production should within unit thereby in And the affected effect. continue all leases compulsory pooling then in existence statutes Louisiana expressly provided. in the neither so But instant case, Board nor the Missis order of the Oil State Gas expressly sippi statutes of 1932 and 1936 conservation provide. so suggested would
In order to reach the the Court result, *31 imply the and conservation sta- to from 1932 1936 have only of the Board not and the thereunder, rules tutes, production production within unit constitutes the that already which has been decided under each tract therein, imply by also would that Court, but have units this 1932 and 1936 conservation statutes, so created under the production had was not on leased therein, in lands which in the lease effect to leasehold continue as lands would implication do not think that this the unit. I is outside of by 1932 and 1936 statutes and the the rules warranted question of the Board in The orders Board. of the concerning lessee the Unit 14 of were re- the actions
147 property stricted to the within unit. The aforesaid doc- indivisibility obligations trine of of the of lease the is applicable only contracting parties between the and their successors in interest. The situation the instant case by brought by was not caused the but lessor, was about appellant, the actions of the lessee, in- statutes, the tervention of Oil the State Board in the G-as exercise police powers obliga- the of state. division The tions was lessee effectuated these statutes, appellant, actions of Board and of lessee. may Legislature power provide
It be that has production that as in the instant case would continue the my lease as to outside the understanding unit. It is lands present decision that dowe not consider here compulsory pooling either that issue or whether the 1950 provides; so nor producing act do we consider whether a well on the leased in the lands unit continues the lease holding simply on lands it. outside of are now We imply willing general are not from we terms of the supplementary 1936 and the statutes, rules of legislation, Legislature the Board under that tended that that the in- production not on the leased lands within unit would continue lease as to lands not within the unit. Heidelberg Jasper County.
Town v. 8, 1953
June
No. 38804
Adv.
S.