Court Opinion

ID: 9660008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:00:57.746292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:13.904110
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees have filed an able, courteous and forceful motion for-rehearing and among other things-requested that we. find as a fact that “Appellees did not in the three-instruments executed ■ by them ■ expressly permit the unitization or pooling of the mineral -interest in question in-which they had a 'possibility of reversion’ mineral interest.” It is true and we do so find that no “express, or specific”, permission was granted by the conveyances for the grantees to pool the mineral interest in question. But, there being no restrictions placed thereon, the grantees in the mineral deed, as pointed out in our original opinion, had the unlimited authority to= do anything with their property that they saw fit to do. A" careful examination of the very instrument which appellees contend they excepted the mineral interest from, the oil, gas and mineral lease, contains a provision authorizing the pooling of the- minerals conveyed by the lease with any other minerals, which we find included the right, to pool with the minerals that appellees had already conveyed.
We further find that, .if appellants did not have the áuthority, -to pool the- min^ erais in question that -the present holders of the mineral leases on the minerals involved would be necessary and indispensable parties to this suit- as probably would be others within- the unit. ■
We appreciate - the , "able and courteous manner in which this motion for rehearing is presented and regret that we"-are unable to agree with able counsel in his position, and view of- the law.
Feeling thát we have correctly disposed of the case, the .motion for rehearing is respectfully overruled.