Court Opinion

ID: 9688243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:41:39.872128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:36.847854
License: Public Domain

On Application for Second Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
Counsel for W. R. Sanders contend on application for a second rehearing that this court has never considered the question of whether the orders of the Commissioner of Conservation could validly have the effect of interrupting or suspending the liberative prescription.
The conclusion we have reached in this case necessarily reflects that we have given consideration to this question, and whether the order of the Commissioner unitizing the area had the effect of suspending the running of prescription by placing an obstacle to drilling on defendants’ property, or of interrupting the prescription by the drilling of a producing well within the unit, in which defendants’ property is included, is immaterial in this case.
HAMITER, J., does not take part because of his view heretofore expressed.