OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVER SELLERS 

Al-rORNLY GINERAL hl 

Non. 01111 Culbarson, Ohalrram 

Railroad Coxnlaoion 0r Tams 

kuatln, Toxaa 

1)4ar $1~ O&dnlon No. O-7046 

..~_- 

,, ‘\ 

,,/: 

suah sroaptlonr in 

rant only ona we&l to 

~411 ohall b4 lQcret4d. / 

Hauklna town8lt4. 

applloanto ooto 

or th0 0m4r or 
Hon. GlIn Oulberson - ?sgs 2 

arter dlsoorsry. llwi r8siainlng two lots w4re 14assd 

to oth4r parties, also 8rt8r a4 Ol4oor4ry. All 

lots am adJoinin& sad oontiguous. 

wn4 or th4 appiiasnt*8 188848 rro81 th8 origiml omer or ths rour eubtllvldad lot8 Is prior in 

point ot time to th4 14ese on th4 oth4r two lots. 

Thlr eppllsant oontends that ths les80x-s and. 

orl@.nal owmrs oi th4 rour lots havs s right to 

at least one well on said rbur lots (The Ossmlsslon 

Is agreeable to thla oontantlon but he8 herstotore retused sppliostlons tar oae no11 011 essh or 

the two subdlrlbed lots); thst their 144se, being 

prior in point o? the to tk4 leas4 on the other 

two lots, they (the applioants) are entItle to a 

prior right to a permit as ocmpared with those 

holding a subrepuent lease on the other two lots. 

'1 wish to ysln rapeat that the Oosuslsslon 

has held that oaly one well sari be drlllsd on 

these iour lots, and we have not berm oonsiderfa# 

the louatlon or ths well anywhere other than as 

shore-mentions&. 

*At ths NQINIS~ oi applf4ants, the tOllowing 

law question is propouadedr 

wC,%LGTIGNz rdlhere 8 tM4t of land is segrbgat4d In areas *hi&# oannot be drilled exoept under 

exoaption to Rule 37, 4008 the holdar ot th4 rirat 

lease granted (oonslderatioxi of waste exaeptad) 

hsrs a prhr right to a perthit uvef th8 holder or 

a uubsepusnt lease?* 

The desorlbsd iaot situstlon 18 an ultLgat4 resbilt 

or the applisation of Rule 37 and Its allowsble oxosptloas to 

the Hawkins Fielil or East !B~xa8. 3~4 owner of the four lets Is 

entitled to but one w4ll. He oannot expand this right by & 

voluntsry rubdivision u&d thereby ozwita a rl6ht in hiaseli, 

of in a~ lessee, to an adbitlenal wall. Bun Oil 0smpan.y Vs. 

Railroad Commlsslon, 68 9. a. (24) 609. Nevertheless, the 

o wner -lessor h a d l e4n rit to qndt an‘011 *ad gas lrase to two 

or the lots to one lessee, and. at a lst4r dsta, an l ddltlo a a l 
Hon. Olin Oulknoa - Page 3 

lease on the other two lots to another lessee and without any 

exDMS* OOnV%yMoo Or his right to thr on4 wall to either lessee. 

% assume that the 011 and gas leasae to th4 two lesseea ~ployed 

the same and standard form with respeot to QrIlllng rights. 

at hsnd. ia 

Extenslre researoh Indloates that the preolse question 

one or rlrat impression. Is the sane of Railroad 

Ods*ioR, et al, *a. MillFr, 165 9, W. (26) 504, the court 

8p~oifioallY reS~:m~d the question of the.legal erred or the 

two oIr4umstano4s: 

only under exseptlon 

(1) a small trsot whloh osn be dorrloped 

to Rule 37 to proteot rested rights, and 

85 SUSh entitled to but on4 well; and (2) the hota of a prior 

and OS a subsequent lease on subdltIslons of the tra4t without 

an express oonvaysnoe by the owner-lessor ot the right to the on4 

l llswable well. 

W4 are of the opinion that the legal etrest of the 

first lease in relation to the seoon&, in the respeots about 

whloh you lnqulr4&-wheth4r desmibed aa an Implied conveysmoe 

of the lesaor*s right to drill th4 one null, or the granting 

to the first lessee or a prorerentlal right to drill suoh well, 

or otherwIse--1s to gir4 to ths first lessee a prior right to a 

permit to drill as against the holder of the sub8equent lease. 

Th4 pronounowmnt or the Court ti Edgar, et al, vs. Stanollnd 

011 & Gas Gompsny, 4t al, 90 8. W. (26) 656, writ refused, that 

a subsequent lessee "4ould insure no greater rlghd under the 

law than that vest4d in his lesaors~ Is persuaslYe by analogy.. 

It Is believed that frarp any approach to thb question, 

the first lsS444 la in the stronger legal and oqultable position. 

For example, under the applloatlon of' th4 imputed notioe dootr$se 

(see 31 Tex. SW. pp. 363, 3641 Bsloher Land Mtg. 00. vs. 01-k. 

238 s. W. 685)--iand 'ehs faotcand 4lrWWt4nO~are smple, in 

0~ opinion, for its a plioatlon--the seoond lessee is ohar ed 

with notio4 of the rao t or the first lease, together with de 

sorollary ra4t that the lessor had pr4TIously dirested himuslf 

of auoh‘rights as wm granted In the 011 and gas less4, On4 of 

whloh Gas the right to drill. 

Therefore, under the faata stated in your Iauufr~, 

,md expr4ssly limited to fmoh raots. Your we8tion I* snrmr4d 

In the afflrmatire. 

we express no opinion upon t&e question of th4 right* 

or we moon& leasee in event or dralnaao or hi* leasrhold by 
Ron. Olin Culborean - Page 4 

the first well (sea Magnolia Pet. Co.~rs. Blankenshlp, et al, 

85 Fe+. (2Q) 5531, or upon any questiona whioh might subsaquently aria4 oonosrnln(r. additional well8. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNZYOgagRALOFTEXAS 

BY 

Asslstanf