Court Opinion

ID: 9859298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 19:39:17.636496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:27:54.817561
License: Public Domain

HAMITER, Justice
(dissenting).
Assuming that the jactitation action is appropriate in adjudging disputed mineral rights, as to-such appropriateness I entertain considerable doubt and so expressed it in Ware v. Baucum, 221 La. 259, 59 So.2d 182. I am satisfied that this cause is governed by our decisions in International Paper Co. v. Louisiana Central Lumber Co., 202 La. 621, 12 So.2d 659 and Lenard v. Shell Oil Co., Inc., 211 La. 265, 29 So.2d 844. The doctrine announced and applied therein is to the effect that one in possession of the surface of a parcel of land cannot maintain the jactitation action respecting the mineral rights thereto where, at the time of the filing of suit, they are being possessed adversely by another through and by means of drilling and production operations.
In those cases the drilling operations constituting the adverse possession were conducted- by persons holding leases obtained from the owners of outstanding mineral servitudes. And that factual situation, •slightly different from the one in the instant cause which is that the lease authorizing and providing for the drilling undertaken was granted by the record fee owner (of both surface and minerals), perhaps ■prompted the basically important observation contained in the majority opinion that, .“The surface owner’s right to maintain a jactitory suit to protect his mineral rights can only be denied, as we understand the law, in cases where the possessor claims under a title wherein the mineral rights have been reserved or sold to another, i. e., — by the creation of a mineral servitude.” (Italics mine.)
But I do not understand the International Paper Co. and Lenard cases, or any other cases in our jurisprudence, to hold that it is only when or where an outstanding mineral servitude is being exercised that the surface possessor is prevented from resorting to the jactitation action. If they did so hold the resulting effect would be that, under our law, the record owner of an entire property (both fee, and mineral rights) does not occupy so favorable a position respecting minerals as does a mere servitude owner.
In the instant case, according to the theory of the majority opinion as I appreciate it, if Holt had conveyed one-half of his mineral rights fo “X” who in turn leased them to the defendant drilling operators and they, at the samé, time, acquired from the record fee owner (Holt) a lease on his remaining one-half minerals, these plaintiffs could maintain the jactitation action as to the last-mentioned one-half mineral interest but not as to the former. This appears to result in an anomalous situation which, in my opinion, the law does not contemplate.
I respectfully dissent.