Court Opinion

ID: 9691862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:21:22.993293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:27.446856
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.
If there is any indication in our original opinion that the contract, letter agreement, and other evidence adduced on the trial of the exception of prematurity could not and should not be considered or *217that our determination of the lack of merit in the plea of prematurity was reached without considering that evidence, we here specifically repudiate and reject the same. After consideration of the evidence adduced, we are of the opinion that the ex-ceptor has failed to establish on the face of this evidence that the suit is premature in all its facets. The contract and letter agreement contemplate that the parties shall adjust the costs of the well upon the unitization of any sand. Readjustment of costs would occur upon production in and unitization of another sand. The parties are not required to await unitization of all sands before seeking an adjustment of costs on the basis of acres owned in the unit as each sand is encountered, produced, and unitized. We reaffirm our holding that a determination by the Commissioner of Conservation is not required before this suit can be entertained. The exception of prematurity is overruled, and the case is remanded for trial on the merits.
HAMITER, C. J., and HAMLIN, J., concur in the denial of a rehearing.
SANDERS, J., is of the opinion that a rehearing should be granted to consider this case.
SUMMERS, J., dissents with written rea-, sons.