Court Opinion

ID: 9832446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:55:10.429252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.864534
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our opinion now on file this language occurs: “The evidence further shows without controversy that all the oil produced by the pipe line company from the lease in controversy was run in a pipe line which was connected with the well and the pipe line company then paid to Langford the one-eighth royalty originally reserved in the lease, for one-half of which plaintiff sued up to the time it began paying the same.”
Through clerical error, the word “produced” appearing in that quotation was used instead of the word “purchased,” which was intended to be used. Therefore that portion of the opinion will be so corrected as to substitute therein the word “purchased” for the word “produced.” With this correction in our opinion, the appellant Jackson’s motion for rehearing is overruled.