the produotlon or oil, Ii, aa and when produoedand saved from any mob paroel, until 8uoh time aa such pamnta for 011 pro- duood and raved from any suoh paroel rhall amount to SSS.66 per aore tar eaoh aore lnoludedin said paroel. tt to tin ldtintlon tlut om?b preel &all be burdsned with auoh overridingroyalty payment only to the extent or $esS.56 for each aare lnoludedtherein..." (Underaoorlngours.) This lease also contain6a first lien provIsionsimilar to that above quoted,ea well 88 a provisionsinilarto that aboro quoted regardingthe obligationsor the leasee to proteatthe prenlses from drainage. . This lepse oontalnsthla further provision: "Ii said lessor owns a leas iptereatIn the leased preniaesthan the entire and undividedfee simple estate, or no Interest~thereon,then the royalties, rentalsand other none e herein providedior shall be psld lessor -71only n the proportionwhich lessor's Interest,Ii any, bears to the whole and undivided fee.* (Underaoorlngours.)
We oonetruethe provisionsof these leases ae oontraat- ing for the paymentof an additionaloontlngentconsldaratlon for the lease, by way or bonus, and deslpating ths 011 as the fund out oi whloh the paymentIs to be made and by which Lt.is to be EIeaBUred,both as to the oooaaionfor, t&e amount., and the time for payzentor the additionalbonus, and reservingexpressly a lien upon such oIl,.aswell aa upon other ppoperty,to secure the payment thereof-- not aI) a reservationor the fund itacll. In other words, the altuatlonIs similarto that resultingfrom the'reservatlonof an expressvendor'slien for the paylentof the defarrsdconsiderationfor the executionor the lease. The right retalnsdby the vsndor was merely a means of bringIn&about payment of the stlpulatsdprI?e of the Interest8old to the. leasee. Ses Buttrm v. Gray County, Texae, 72 Fed. (2nd) 44, . Certioraridenied, 209 U. S. 728; Standleyv. Graham Froduotion co., 83 Fed. (2nd) 409, Certioraridenied, 81 L. Ed. 437; ~ahko v. Frledzzan, 59 9. 1. (2ndj.203;Xanqy v.,Provldent Inr. Co., 158 S. W. 1127; Holiday T. Emin, 85 8. W. (2nd) 355,
aiflxmad,C0~11lesi0n 111.(2nd) 117; Koenig or Appeals,.112i3.- ,. Blo~BravoOil Co., 24 8:R. (2nd) 14, Oommiaaionof Appeala, ~'Seotlon A. In reachingthe above.oono+mion,we hove not over- looked auoh oases as Tennant v. Dunn, 110 9. II.(2nd) 53, and sherrieldv. xog~, 77 S. 17:. (2nd) 1021.. These oases,we believe, are distlngulahebleon the facts..An examinationof nIlperou(I authoritiesl?ads us to the conclusionthat In suoh zatters each oaas turn8 upon the particularprorlaionsof the leana aoatraot or alrslgament under oonslderatlon. It tollcm, thexfors, that the taxes chould be aarareedagainst the owner8of the O/S working intorestIn these tax lhould be assessed leases.and that no realty ad valoren! againsttha 011 paymentholder,the Stati:
Tour3 very truly, ATPORNZYOZN'SRALOF TEXAS
Thlr opinionhaa been zaad, ooniilderad, and approved
in oonfsrenoeand .I6now mdered filed on this the 24th day of January,1939.
Attorney Oeaaral of Texas