*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-11407

Summary Calendar

BURK ROYALTY CO.,

Plaintiff,

versus

ROBBINS TITLE PTR, ET AL.,

Defendant - Cross Defendant - Appellant.

versus

ARTHUR J. GONZALEZ; G & L PARTNERS; KALLAR PROPERTIES;

ANDREW I. TELSEY; MICHAEL PERLMUTTER; MARK C. THOMAS;

KARL D. EDMUNDS; LEE SPIEKER; WALLACE MORGAN; RICHARD G. GLASS;

RICHARD MERMER; CAROLYN BACHNER; PC PARTNERS; SLAINTE JOINT

VENTURE; DOUGLAS D. SAUTER; KATHRYN A. SAUTER; 

RODERICK DOMINGUEZ; KURT GILMORE; DANIEL BOONE; DIANE BOONE; 

B & J PARTNERSHIP; TKJ FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD.; DALE FRASER; 

ALBERTA SOUTH LTD.; 566850 ALTA LTD.; KURT MELSTROM;

GINA MELSTROM; JOHN OWENS; EILEEN OWENS; ROBERT BURGFECHTEL;

S & S GROWTH CORP.; STANLEY F. NEWELL, individually and d/b/a 

ROCEK-NEWELL ENTERPRISES; NEWELL FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, JAY BOYER;

VERNON ESTES;

Defendants - Cross Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CV-922-G)

June 3, 1997

Before WISDOM, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
1 Sheffield v. Hogg, 77 S.W.2d 1021 (Tex. 1934).

2

Andrew L. Quiat appeals the district court’s determination

that the Jones Well purchaser-investors have equitable title to

their respective undivided fractional working interests superior

to Quiat’s judgment lien on the Jones Well. Quiat argues that

the district court erred in failing to consider fully the Oil and

Gas Lease Operating Agreement (the “purchase agreement”) and in

failing to give full faith and credit to Quait’s Colorado

judgment. Quiat’s contentions are without merit. 

The district court properly determined that payment of the

purchase price under the purchase agreement vested the purchaserinvestors with equitable title. In Texas mineral payment rights

are real property rights.1 The purchase agreement provided that

“Mountain States does hereby agree to sell on a turn-key basis to

non-operator __ units . . . in and to oil and gas leases and the

leasehold estate thereby established covering the [D.H. Jones

Well]”. A “unit” is defined in the purchase agreement as “ 1

Unit Working Interest 1.8570% (before payout) 1.4053% (after

payout)”. The only reasonable interpretation of the purchase

agreement is that Mountain States intended to sell, and the

purchaser-investors intended to purchase, a cost bearing interest

in the D.H. Jones Well, the underlying lease, and the leasehold

estate. This was an executory contract. When the purchaserinvestors performed their half of the bargain by paying the
2 Park Central Bank of Dallas v. JHJ Investments Co of

Little Elm, 835 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 1992, no

writ); Texas American Bank/Levelland v. Resendez, 706 S.W.2d 343,

345-346 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 1986, no writ); Jensen v. Bryson, 614

S.W.2d 930, 933 (Tex Civ. App. - Amarillo 1981, no writ).

3 Id.

3

purchase price, they obtained equitable title to their respective

working interests in the well.2 Assuming Quiat’s Colorado

judgment is entitled full faith and credit, the purchaserinvestor’s equitable title is nonetheless superior to Quiat’s

claim as judgment creditor.3 Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.