Court Opinion

ID: 9831976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:31:00.917236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:40.379633
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
An examination of the appellees’ amended original petition, on which the ease was tried, discloses the fact that the plaintiffs did not ask a judgment for the royalty which accrued after the appellant resumed the operation of the wells in 1914. There is, then, no occasion for a remand of this case for the determination of that question. The motion of the appellant will be granted, and the judgment of this court will be reformed and affirmed in part as indicated in the original opinion. The judgment canceling the lease contracts will be reversed, and judgment here rendered in favor of the appellant upon that issue. This judgment, however, is without prejudice to the right of the appellees to hereafter sue for and recov- ‘ er the royalty due them since the resumption of operations in 1914.
[10] The motion of the appellees for a rehearing will be overruled. Their motion to certify will be also overruled, for the reason that a writ of error will lie in this case should they desire to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.