Court Opinion

ID: 9644293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:52:27.349646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:11.182480
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing
Appellee’s able motion for rehearing has convinced us that, irrespective of whether the particular allegations of appellant’s petition support the legal conclusion made therein,,, that a mining partnership exists between appellee and appellant, they will support appellee’s conclusion that if has and is entitled to an equitable lien upon appellant’s share in the jointly owned leases, to secure the payment of appellant’s just share of the cost of operating the leases, including the expenditures necessary for’ repairs, rework, which were necessary to preserve and keep' in force the freehold estate, or the leases.
Even if appellant’s allegations had not been sufficient to indicate that appellee was suing to recover appellant’s just share of the costs necessary to preserve the freehold estate, we question now whether equity would relegate appellee to his legal remedy of running garnishments against the pipe line company just before it paid for the oil runs twice each month. In other words, appellee seems to us to have no adequate remedy at law, and in order to avoid a multitude, of suits, appellee should be given a lien against appellant’s share of the freehold. However, we base our holding.upon the fact that appellant’s allegations as to the expenses of operations, which were necessary to the preservation of the freehold estate, sustain appellee’s allegations that he is entitled to the equitable lien which he has alleged.
We grant appellee’s motion for rehearing, set aside our former judgment, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.