Court Opinion

ID: 9834099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:17:42.066523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.602195
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for rehearing appellant suggests fundamental error, in that, while John R. Foster could assign his interest in the lease, he could not assign his right to “complete control over operation and development,” because such matters embrace covenants entirely personal in character. Whatever may he the proper construction of the contract in this respect cannot be asserted by appellant, because he is estopped to assert any construction of the contract which would interfere with appellees in the enjoyment of Foster’s interest in the lease as well as his right of control of operations and development of same. The undisputed evidence shows that appellant, Elrod, knew that appellees were purchasing Foster’s interest with the intention of further developing the premises. El-rod consented to the assignment by Foster and became interested in the conveyance to the extent that he received $1,500 of the consideration paid by appellees to Foster for a reconveyance of the ¾28 interest which Foster assigned to him as security for debt. El-rod never at any time objected to Foster conveying his interest to appeRees, and made no complaint or objection to further drilling until the deal between Foster and appellees was fully consummated, and after he (El-rod) had received $1,500 of the cash consideration paid by appellees.
The motion will be overruled.
Overruled.