Court Opinion

ID: 9538371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:35:46.782212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:49.361379
License: Public Domain

Herd, J.,
concurring and dissenting: I concur in the result reached by the majority pertaining to Tract 1 but disagree with the rationale. I dissent from the majority opinion as to Tract 3.
The majority opinion requires that gas production come from a well physically drilled on the reserved acreage to perpetuate a mineral reservation. This holding denies the use of scientific methods of recovery of gas, breaches all rules of good conservation practice and defies Kansas Corporation Commission rules and regulations. I would hold the gas production from Section Eight (8), one-fourth of which is attributable to Tract 1 (Northwest Quarter of Section 8), is “production” as contemplated in the mineral reservation in the Classen deed and perpetuates the reservation under the habendum clause as to Tract 1. Production attributable to Tract 1 in this manner would perpetuate the reservation on the remaining acreage described in the deed, in this case Tract 3, pursuant to Baker v. Hugoton Production Co., 182 Kan. 210, 320 P.2d 772 (1958). This holding would be consistent with my dissent in Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522, 608 P.2d 915 (1980), which attempts to clarify the inconsistencies in Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258, 380 P.2d 379 (1963); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658, 465 P.2d 938 (1970); and Smith v. Home Royalty Association, 209 Kan. 609, 498 P.2d 98 (1972), and which recommended we adopt the rule in Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Issacson, 255 F.2d 669 (10th Cir. 1958).