Court Opinion

ID: 9535489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:50:11.574396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:15.936345
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(concurring).
A literal interpretation of LSA-R.S. 30:102, which is quoted in the main opinion, furnishes much support to the contention of defendant that attorney’s fees are recoverable by a mineral lessor only in event of a lapse and complete forfeiture of the lease. Hence, it appears to me that the decision in the case hinges upon whether R.S. 30:102 is a penal statute, which must be strictly construed, or whether the attorney’s fees provided for therein may be regarded as compensatory damages, thus warranting a more liberal interpretation of the law.
It is my opinion that the provision for liability “for a reasonable attorney’s fee incurred by the lessor in bringing suit to have the cancellation adjudged” is not a penalty inflicted on the lessee for the breach of his obligations under the lease; it is simply recognition of a right to rec*355ompense for an expense incurred by the lessor which would not be recoverable in the courts in the absence of a statute or special agreement between the parties. Thus viewed, the statute is entitled to a reasonable interpretation, which would seem to justify the conclusion of the majority that its provisions apply to cases involving a partial cancellation of the lease because of the lessee’s breach as well as those in which a complete lapse or forfeiture has been adjudged.
I concur in the decree.