valid even though City 18 the purchaser. Under the contract,City doe8 not produceone cubic foot of the gae. The produc' tion fall8 entirelyupon Comxanieaand 80 does the tax. As said by the Supreme Court in the &se of-w v. Stat+ l@ Tex. 637, 180 S.W.2d 429: "The provisionsof the Act in no uncertainlanguage levies the tax againstthe producerof gas and not the purchaserthereof.w
The lease and the Gas Sales Contractwere executedcontemporan- 8oU¶ly and must thereforebe construedtogetheras one instrument. City, aa part of the consideration for executingthe lease,requiredthat Corn- pan188 contractto 8811 to City the amount of gas mentionedin the oontWr on certaint8rmS. The usual provisionin an oil and gas lease is that tbs lessee psy a bonus and an additionalconsiderationor payment nf a roPlty . J
$ori. Robert S. Calvert,page 3 (W&Se)
to t&O ~18SSOl-iBut in this case the considerationis that Companieswill sell to City a certainamount of gas. Ths contractrecites that because of the agreementby Companiesto sell gas to City, it would execute a leaseto ColPpanies without the payment of any cash bonus. It 18 therefore quite applrentthat City reservesno royaltyand the transaction.isin effecta sale of,allmineralsby City to Companies. The Gas Sales Con- tract so states. It is clear that the gas which is deliveredt0 City iS not a deliveryof gas as royalty in kind but is in truth en actual sale. The contractmakes many referencesto the faotthrt COU@ni8s will Sell and that City will pay, thus -negativingthe idea of delivery of a gas ,I royaltyin kind Or a royaltyreservation. The net reeult of the lease. and tb Gas Sales Contract,when consideredand construedtogether,is that City conveyedthe~mineralestate to Companiesin considerationof Compnies' agreementto sell the specifiedamount of gas to City for the yric8 specifiedin Section3 of the contractwhich is.Tater specifically. set out in this opinion. ,.
That City is the purcbrwr is wholly dmnmterial. Stat&a y. Citv of El w, 135 Tex. 359, 143 S.W.2d 366. This.caseinvolvesthe motor fuel salas tax, but it holds that it is immaterialthat a City is the pWOhILSerof the mOtOr fuel; so it is her8 as t0 this gas. IIIthis case the aourt said: ,Ii (I .In this instancewe think that beyond any. doubt z motor fuel tax lava tax the first actual sale of motor fuel in this State,regardlessof whether Or not it is sold to a city. . . ."
The only obligationimposedupon Companiesby the contractis to se11 to City forthe considerationspecified,in the amount specifiedand for the time specified,gas which it produoesfrom the McAllen GeneralArea, observingthe obligationto give City priorityto purchase.overother pur- chasersof the gas. This doss not render City a producerunder the contract or the statute. Nor does it render it a royalty ovner or interested.party vithlnthe purviewof the statute, The contractin no manner restricts, by reservation,carvingout, or othervise,th8 completeOvnershipby Corn- panicsover all the gas under the McAllen General Area. of aourse,the Whole of all the gas is depletedby sales made by Companies,but it still remainsthe Ovner of all that is left, and so it will continueunder the contractas long as it is