Court Opinion

ID: 9761803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:54:59.281364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:26.505863
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In the deed to the 202 acre Bright tract to appellee, Mrs. Bright reserved all of “oil, gas and other minerals.” One half of such minerals are now concededly owned by third parties. Appellee claims to own one half of these minerals although no conveyance to him is shown.
In appellee’s Motion for Rehearing it is pointed out that the leases executed by himself and Mrs. Bright, and assigned to the unit operator, are for oil and gas only and do not include other minerals.
The effect of this is not material. The unitization agreement was executed by ap-pellee and Mrs. Bright and it defined “Royalty Owner” as including any party thereto who was the “owner of a mineral, royalty” etc.
Appellee and Mrs. Bright as owners of a mineral, salt water, under their land were bound by the agreement wherein it provided that the unit operator could extract subsurface water for certain purposes without paying therefor.
The fact that appellee may have owned more of the salt water than others who signed the agreement is of no consequence.
If, as held in our original opinion, relief is sought for conversion of salt water, i. e., not utilized as provided in the unitization agreement, then recovery should be prorated *764accordingly as ownership of the mineral estate is established.
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.