Court Opinion

ID: 9692630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:59:02.577391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:35.750691
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees. In my opinion, plaintiff has no case at all as defendant’s royalty interest has not been extinguished by prescription. The operating unit formed by Union Oil Company on February 13, 1950, to which plaintiff gave his unconditional consent and from which production was obtained during the life of the royalty interest, was not invalid by reason of the oil company’s failure to have Basil Sonnier’s express consent at the time of its formation. The latter’s consent, which was subsequently obtained, had a retrospective effect by virtue of Article 2041 of the Civil Code. See my dissenting opinion in Union Oil Co. of California v. Touchet, 229 La. 316, 86 So.2d 50.