Court Opinion

ID: 9859081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 18:38:48.212311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:01.930555
License: Public Domain

Hall, J.,
Specially Concurring.
I did not participate in the consideration or decision in the ease of Superior Oil Co. v. Beery, 63 So. 2d 115, • for the reason that the law firm of which I was formerly a member represented the appellee therein, nor did I participate in the consideration or decision in Superior Oil Co. v. Foote, 63 So. 2d 137, for the reason that it involved the same point as the Beery case. In my opinion the decisions in those cases are erroneous in holding that the State Oil and Gas Board had the authority to compel pooling of all mineral interests in a unit of more than 40 acres under the type of lease involved in those cases prior to the adoption of Chapter 220, Laws of 1950, and are further erroneous in holding that the establishment of a drilling unit had the effect of forcing the pooling of all mineral interests therein. However, I consider myself, hound by those decisions and therefore concur in the result reached in the case now at bar.
ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR
Hall, J.
Under authority of Superior Oil Co. v. Foote, 214 Miss. 857, 59 So. 2d 84, and Green v. Superior Oil Co., 59 So. 2d 100, not yet reported in the State Reports, the suggestion of error is overruled as to the merits of this case on Units 52 and 55.
That part of the suggestion of error which questions the propriety of remanding the case to the lower court is treated as a motion to correct judgment and the same is sustained and judgment final will be here entered in accordance with the original opinion.
Suggestion of error overruled; motion to correct judgment sustained.
All Justices concur except Kyle, J.', who took no part.