Court Opinion

ID: 9774158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:10:20.482656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:03.025911
License: Public Domain

On Appellants’ Second Motion for Rehearing
Since our last opinion was filed, overruling appellees’ second motion for rehearing, the appellants have filed their own second motion for rehearing, and the ap-pellees, in reply, have filed a motion to strike it because it was filed after the time *255limited by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 458. Appellees are correct in this contention because the opinion overruling appellants’ first motion for rehearing was filed on June 29th; the later filing of the opinion overruling appellees’ second motion for rehearing did not authorize appellants to file another motion for rehearing in their own behalf within fifteen days thereafter, nor did the substitution of pages in our original opinion.. The pages substituted changed only the form of expression, not holdings made. Accordingly, appellants’ second motion for rehearing is subject to being stricken insofar as it states any ground for changing, or prays for any change in, the judgment of this court; but this document does contain a criticism of language in our opinion of June 29th which shows that ap- , pellants have misinterpreted this language. We infer from the preamblé of appellees’ second motion for rehearing that appellees correctly understood our holding, .but that there may be no misunderstanding of our intention we make the following statement.
The language referred to in the opinion of June 29th is the direction to the trial court “to render final judgment in defendants’ behalf, that plaintiffs take nothing as regards said land”; the land referred to is the small fenced, area about the well. This language in the opinion of June 29th was made with reference to the lease, not with reference to the title to the land independent of the lease, and so the trial court, in complying with our instructions on remand, should not simply render judgment that appellants take nothing as regards this fenced area but, instead, should render judgment that appellants (the plaintiffs) take nothing against the appellees (the defendants) as regards the estates, rights, interests and privileges in, respecting or appertaining to, said fenced area which the oil, gas and mineral lease in . suit purports to convey. The clerk is directed to draft the judgment of this court accordingly.
But to refer again to appellants’ second motion for rehearing: The' contention based oh paragraph 5 of the lease (which constitutes that part of the motion other than the criticism of language in our opinion of June 29th) would be overruled if the motion to strike had not been filed. If succeeding provisions of paragraph 5, with provisions concerning rental which are in paragraphs 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the lease, do not provide for annual delay rentals, then under paragraph 2, the lease would run for five years without rentals, and the well was drilled within this five years.