Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): which would have no effect on the claims of the other class members. While it is true that the individual claims have in common many questions of fact and law, and the royalty owners have a shared interest in the manner in which the gas is collected and the royalty is calculated, the royalty owners do not possess a “common and undivided interest” in either the royalty payments or the natural gas supply. See Kary v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. A1-03-009, 2002 WL 32067456, at *4 (D.N.D. Mar.19, 2002); see also Coulter v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., No. 98-1413-WEB, 1999 WL 1253031, at *3 (D.Kan. Oct.8, 1999) (acknowledging the court’s consistent rejection of attempts at aggregating the claims of oil and gas royalty owners). Cf. Craig v. Champlin Petroleum Co., 421 F.2d 236, 240 (10th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>). But see Williams v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing as impermissible the aggregation of claims seeking to recover royalties allegedly due under oil and gas leases (B) recognizing oil gas and coal are minerals and holding if oil gas and minerals are reserved from the grant of the surface of several tracts of unseated land  they can be taxed as an estate in land (C) recognizing that a metes and bounds partition when land contains oil and gas results in a serious loss to a coowner who receives a lot without oil or gas under the surface with the loss due solely to the division of the land (D) holding assignment of oil and gas lease is subject to business and commerce code section 2601 (E) holding provision in oil and gas lease authorizing lessor to use gas for agricultural purposes contained no geographical limitations
Output (English): recognizing that a metes and bounds partition when land contains oil and gas results in a serious loss to a coowner who receives a lot without oil or gas under the surface with the loss due solely to the division of the land