Court Opinion

ID: 9828508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:27:05.242056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:49.919910
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion, we did not intend to decide the correct rule for determining the measure of plaintiff’s damages, claimed in his alternative and final prayer for relief. We express no opinion as to that issue, because that relief is prayed for as an alternative to other relief noted in our original opinion, and plaintiff has made no election as between the different remedies sought — not even as to whether he will elect to claim as such damages what defendant realized from the disposition of the mineral interests conveyed to him by the deed in controversy or their market value at the time of trial, less a credit in either event for the $200 heretofore paid by defendant to plaintiff, as already shown, and less any other credits to which defendant may be entitled under principles of equity; in accordance with the rule announced in 42 Tex.Jur., para. 146, p. 768; and decisions there noted, including McCord v. Nabours, 101 Tex. 494, 109 S.W. 913, 111 S.W. 144; Boothe v. Fiest, 80 *600Tex. 141, 15 S.W. 799; Id., Tex.Sup., 19 S. W. 398; Mixon v. Miles, 92 Tex. 318, 47 S.W. 966.
For the same reason, we overrule plaintiffs prayer for a remand of the case for trial only of the issue of such damages.
Nor did we intend to determine, and do not determine, the amount of acreage in which plaintiff is entitled to recover a royalty interest under any theory of plaintiffs pleadings; and nothing we have said in our opinion is to be so construed.
' The certificate of the Comptroller of Public Accounts, purporting to show the oil produced and sales thereof during the period covered by the certificate, having been offered by plaintiff only to show market values of such oils, his motion for a ruling by this Court now, as to whether the same is admissible to show the amount of oil produced, cannot be considered.
With the foregoing explanations, appellant’s motion for a rehearing is overruled.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing, reiterating their various contentions and arguments presented in their briefs, after due consideration, is overruled.