Court Opinion

ID: 9643594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:33:47.730422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:01.481183
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Culver,
joined by Justice Garwood, dissenting.
I agree with both the analysis and conclusion reached by the Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion in this case, 250 S. W. 2d. 296, and would affirm that decision. It seems to me that it placed the proper construction upon the word "operations” as used in the latter part of paragraph 5 of the lease contract. In the sense there used I think it should not be restricted to refer solely to the “drilling or reworking operations” in which the lessee was engaged at the expiration of the primary term, but should include additional drilling if prosecuted according to the terms of the contract with no cessation of more than thirty days. The desired result is the production of oil or gas. The lessor is interested only in the prosecution of the work with diligence and it is of little or no consequence to him whether the desired end is accomplished by reworking an old well or the drilling of a new one. I therefore dissent.
Opinion delivered October 28 1953.