Court Opinion

ID: 9449931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:28:05.848001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:03.395788
License: Public Domain

GEWIN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
After carefully considering the brilliant, clear and well-written opinion of the majority, I find myself more in agreement with the opinion of the District Court1 than with the majority opinion. Accordingly, I would adhere to the result and the conclusions reached by the District Court.
It appears to me that the majority opinion is not correct in holding that the mineral reservation provided for a contractual prescription for the conditional extinguishment of the mineral servitude which was rendered inoperative by the Louisiana statutes, which is to say, that there were conditions or a condition set forth in the contract which made the period for which the servitude was established indefinite and uncertain. The reservation was not of indefinite duration in my view, but was for a definite, fixed and specified time which elapsed on December 21, 1948,2 before the Government executed its lease and before the discovery of oil.
The contract did not provide for a conditional extinguishment, but actually provided for a conditional partial renewal. The renewal conditions were not met during the initial 10 year period, and only the occurrence of those uncer*95tain conditions would have renewed or extended the definite, fixed initial period of 10 years. The term of the servitude is definite. The right of renewal or extension is conditional and indefinite. In addition to the foregoing, as clearly pointed out by the District Court and noticed by the majority, a large area of the property would be released from the servitude inevitably, regardless of what took place.
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.

. United States v. Leiter Minerals, Inc. (D.C.E.D.La.1962) 204 F.Supp. 560.

. See note 26 of the District Court’s opinion reported in 204 F.Supp. 560.