Case Name: Superior Oil Co., et al. v. Foote, et al.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1953-02-23
Citations: 216 Miss. 728
Docket Number: No. 38562
Parties: Superior Oil Co., et al. v. Foote, et al.
Judges: McGehee, G. J., and Kyle, Holmes, Arrington, Ethridge and Lotterhos, JJconcur.
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 216
Pages: 728–746

Head Matter:
Superior Oil Co., et al. v. Foote, et al.
Feb. 23, 1953
No. 38562
21 Adv. S. 101
63 So. 2d 137
Wells, Thomas, Wells & Smith, and W■ B. Wagner and Murray Christian, for appellants.
jBuchanan & Montgomery, and Alexander & Alexander and J. E. Sldnner, for appellees.

Opinion:
Roberds, J.
Alfred Foote, Urban B. Hughes, Henry N. Toler and W. S. Gordon, the appellees, owned together a one-half interest in the mineral rights in and under, three tracts of land located in the Gwinville oil and gas field in Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi. The parcels embrace tracts of 19 and 105 and 20 acres situated, respectfully, in units 10, 32 and 33 in said oil and gas field. Appellees filed the bill herein against Superior Oil Company, as lessee of, and certain other royalty and mineral owners in, said three tracts, seeking, among other things, (1) to cancel the leases of Superior, which were acquired prior to acquisition of the rights of complainants, as a cloud upon their titles, and (2) to recover of Superior, as operating lessee, the entire value of their one-half royalty interests in gas which had been produced by Superior from three gas wells — one upon each of said units — in proportion as complainants' acreage bore to the total acreage of each unit, less "the cost of development and operation of such wells." The chancellor cancelled the leases, ordered an accounting and rendered a money judgment against Superior as prayed for in the bill.
This is a companion case to that of Superior Oil Company v. Roy Beery, No. 38,528, this day handed down. The controlling facts are substantially the same in the two cases. That case, and those cited therein, settle the essential questions involved in this case. We might only add that this Court has adjudicated that the three units here involved were validly and legally established. Green v. Superior Oil Co., . Miss.........., 59 So. 2d 100, and Superior Oil Co. v. Foote, et al., . Miss.........., 59 So. 2d 85.
This means that the leases here involved are valid, subsisting leases and appellees are entitled only to their proportionate share of the gas produced under said leases.
Reversed and remanded.
McGehee, G. J., and Kyle, Holmes, Arrington, Ethridge and Lotterhos, JJconcur.
Hall, J., took no part.