Court Opinion

ID: 9792856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:38:08.275903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:02.487417
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with that said in the majority opinion, but I wish to comment briefly upon appellants’ contention that the pertinent issue concerns an alleged violation of the implied covenant of reasonable development.
*1041Implied covenants are particularly germane to oil and gas leases. See 5 Kuntz, Oil and Gas, Ch. 54, et seq. (1978 Rev.); 2 Summers, Oil and Gas, § 391, et seq. (1959). But an implied covenant may be superseded by an inconsistent express provision in the lease agreement. Brimmer v. Union Oil Co. of California, 81 F.2d 437 (10th Cir. 1936); Adkins v. Adams, 152 F.2d 489 (7th Cir. 1945); Swiss Oil Corporation v, Riggsby, 252 Ky. 374, 67 S.W.2d 30 (1934); Linn v. Wehrle, 35 Ohio App. 107, 172 N.E. 288 (1928). The majority opinion adequately points out that § 11 of the lease agreement was express in setting forth the parties understanding concerning that which occurred in this case.
Under provisions similar to § 11 of the lease agreement, the habendum clause has been held to be satisfied as to all parts of the leased premises when, as here, only the part of the premises upon which the well is located is included in a unit. Wells v. Continental Oil Company, 244 Miss. 509, 142 So.2d 215 (1962), and even when there was no well on the leased premises (part of which was unitized) but was located elsewhere in the unit. Trawick v. Castleberry, Okl., 275 P.2d 292 (1953); Texaco, Inc. v. Lettermann, Tex.Civ.App., 343 S.W.2d 726 (1961); Brixey v. Union Oil Company of California, (W.D., Ark.), 283 F.Supp. 353 (1968); Buchanan v. Sinclair Oil & Gas Company, 218 F.2d 436 (5th Cir. 1955).