Court Opinion

ID: 9825615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:47:49.925611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:13.169119
License: Public Domain

Smith, J. (on rehearing). Our holding in this case is that the lessee is not liable for the conversion of the oil until given the notice for which the lease provides, which is a written notice. Now, that notice was not given; but our attention is called, in the petition for rehearing, to the fact that this requirement was waived as to a portion of the oil in a letter signed by appellant’s superintendent, reading as follows: “In answer to your letter of June 8, 1940, we remitted to J. W. Taitón the sum of $31.19, representing the proceeds of his .001953 royalty interest in oil and gas delivered to us from the above farm during the period July 15, 1933, throug’h June 14, 1935. “We are withholding to the credit of this interest the sum of $51.83, representing the proceeds of oil run from J une 15,1935, to April 9,1939, both dates inclusive. We disconnected our lines for oil on April 10, 1939. We are also holding the sum of $4.04, which represents the proceeds of this interest in gas delivered to us during the. period June 15, 1935, throug’h May, 1940.” This letter states that the company was withholding $55.87 on account of the royalty arising from the Taitón l/512th interest in the lease, and no notice was required to give it additional information. The decree from which is this appeal found the value of the royalty on this l/512th interest since the date of the rendition of the judgment to be $87.06, and rendered judgment for 2/3rds of that sum, or $58.04, the difference being the value of a dower interest about which no question is made, so that any judgment in favor of Craig’s administratrix should be for 2/3rds of any amount for which the company is liable. This judgment was erroneous because it includes royalty accruing before notice was given, but under the letter above copied royalty amounting to $55.87 accrued after notice. The judgment should, therefore, have been rendered for 2/3rds of this $55.87, or $37.24. The decree will, therefore, be modified by reducing the judgment from $55.04 to $37.24. It was necessary to prosecute this appeal to obtain this relief. The important question in the case was the one of law, whether the oil company was responsible for the royalty before notice, and this question was decided in favor of appellant. The judgment of this court imposing the costs of the appeal on appellee will not be modified.