Court Opinion

ID: 9772787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:30:03.096437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:01.512599
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
When our opinion on appellants’ motion for rehearing was finally drafted, a part of same was inadvertently omitted. Therefore, the opinion on motion for rehearing is withdrawn and the following is substituted in lieu thereof.
Appellants have filed a motion for rehearing in which they most forcefully contend that we erred in holding there was no ambiguity in the lease contract and supplemental letter agreement, and that the lease and supplemental letter agreement is not *133susceptible of more than one construction; also, that no issue of fact was raised by the record in this case. We have re-examined the record and the authorities and remain of the opinion that our original decision is correct. The affidavit filed in the trial court by R. J. Whelan alleged many conditions leading up to the execution of the original lease and supplemental letter agreement that are not contained either in the lease or the supplemental letter agreement. Then we find the following statement contained in the affidavit of R. J. Whelan: “When the lease amendment of June 7, 1946 zvas redttced to writing in its final form, it contained the terms and conditions upon which myself, my brothers and sisters executed the lease to the Humble Oil & Refining Company.’ (Emphasis added.) If the terms and conditions of the agreement are contained in the lease amendment dated June 7, 1946, there was no need for the affidavit; although there is contradiction in the affidavit when construed in connection with the lease and the lease amendment or supplemental letter agreement of June 7, 1946, there is still no ambiguity in the lease and the supplemental letter agreement.
 There being no ambiguity in the lease, the intention of the parties being clearly stated, and the contract not being susceptible of two reasonable meanings, the trial court was not authorized to admit parol or extrinsic evidence to explain it. Such is the holding of our Supreme Court in the case of McMahon v. Christmann, 303 S.W.2d 341, 344, wherein the Court speaking through Justice Calvert, said:
“In interpreting the lease it is the duty of the court to seek the intention of the parties. 31-A Tex.Jur. 179, Oil and Gas, Sec. 109. The intention of the parties, as that intention is expressed in the lease, is to be ascertained by a consideration of all of the provisions of the lease, 31-A Tex.Jur. 181, Oil and Gas, Sec. 110, and by harmonizing, if possible, those provisions which appear to be in conflict. Woods v. Sims, 154 Tex. 59, 273 S.W.2d 617. If after established rules of interpretation have been applied there still appears to be a conflict or an ambiguity in the provisions of the lease so that it is susceptible of two reasonable meanings, then, and only then, is the court authorized to receive extrinsic evidence to resolve the conflict or ambiguity. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Daniel, 150 Tex. 513, 243 S.W.2d 154; Lewis v. East Texas Finance Co., 136 Tex. 149, 146 S.W.2d 977.”
Appellants also contend that we erred in holding that the lease and the supplemental letter agreement does not constitute a “pooled” or unitized lease. We did not so hold. A “pooled” or “unitized” lease is one in which two or more tracts of land are covered by a single lease by contract between the parties. Ward v. Gohlke, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W.2d 422, wr. ref., and authorities therein cited. There is a broad difference between a “pooled” or “unitized” lease and a “pooled unit” as provided for in the lease in question in this case. There can be a provision for pooling units provided for in a “pooled” or “unitized” lease. The lease in question in this case is a “pooled” or “unitized” lease which was made for the purpose of the contract in question. And, there is also a provision that lessee can pool any part of the lease involved with other land, thereby creating “pooled units”, as defined in the foregoing opinion. The authorities relied upon by appellants to support their contention, that a pooled unit can be carved solely out of the “pooled” or “unitized” lease, all deal with leases where two or more tracts were pooled in the lease contracts, by different owners, and do not support their contention. These cases are not in point here. In a “pooled” or “unitized” lease the respective parties own an interest in the exact proportion to the interest pooled in the original lease contract. In leases such as the one in this case where a “pooled unit” is formed, the parties will own an interest in any pooled unit in pro*134portion to the amount of their respective interests included in any pooled unit under the terms of the lease.
Appellants also contend that we erred in holding that an issue of fact was not raised as to the payment of delay rentals and that the lease did not expire at the end of its primary term because there was no production on any part of the lease at the expiration of the primary term. The production and payment of rentals was stipulated by the parties. Appellants in their original brief stated: “Humble also failed to pay delay rentals for the period beginning December 10, 1953, but resumed these payments on December 10, 1954, as shown by the stipulation of the parties.” (Emphasis added.) At another place in the brief appellants say: “So far as the motions for summary judgment are concerned, the question before the court, as to the payment of delay rentals, is whether there is a substantial fact issue as to the obligation of Humble to continue the payment of delay rentals under the letter of June 7, 1946, as to all leased acreage except the 40 acres included in the unit allocated to the Renwar well.” The Renwar well was drilled upon a designated “drill site” wholly within the lease. Oil was produced in paying quantities from October, 1952 through July, 1954. Under the terms of the lease, no delay rentals were due for the years in which oil was produced from the well wholly within the lease in paying quantities. It was stipulated that Humble resumed payment of delay rentals on December 10, 1954. Drilling operations were commenced prior to December 10, 1955; this is not denied. No fact issue is left. The lease did not terminate upon the expiration of the primary term.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Appellants will be given 15 days from this date in which to file a second motion for rehearing, or 30 days from this date in which to file an application for writ of error.