Court Opinion

ID: 9863190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:11:19.027399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:53.419672
License: Public Domain

REAVLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
When Murphey owned the mineral estate (subject to outstanding royalty) in this tract, he executed a formal “ratification” which confirmed and bound him to the provisions of the unit operating agreement. The unit operating agreement contained a schedule of ownership of the working interest in the tract; that schedule did not list Murphey as an owner of working interest, as it would have done if his mineral estate had not been under lease, but listed Atlantic (and its assignee, Hunt) as the owner of 100% of the working interest. I agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that this case is controlled by Loeffler v. King, 149 Tex. 626, 236 S.W.2d 772 (1951). The original lease was revived or ratified. The judgment in favor of Atlantic et al. should be affirmed.