Court Opinion

ID: 9599199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:15:56.359561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:13.047811
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE FREEBOURN
(concurring).
I concur in the foregoing opinion. The Enabling Act, section 11, makes it clear that the parties to such pact intended: (1) If the lands given by the United States for public school purposes were held intact, “Rentals * * * and all other actual income” from such lands “shall be available for the maintenance and support of such schools and institutions” and (2) if such lands were sold or any part thereof permanently disposed of the money received therefor should become permanent funds for the support and maintenance of the public schools and named institutions.
Oil royalty and oil bonus come into being only when oil is brought to the surface and, because such oil when taken is deemed a permanent taking and disposition of part of the land, the money received as oil royalty and oil bonus, paid only after the oil is produced and the quantity thereof determined, constitutes permanent school funds.
The bonus or premium under discussion here, and paid before *463the lease is granted and entered into, cannot be oil royalty or oil bonus. It is not paid for oil produced, but is bid and paid solely as an inducement to secure the lease of the lands.
The lands so leased may never be drilled upon and, if drilled upon, may never produce oil.
Even if such premium or bonus be held to be separate and apart from rental, it certainly, nevertheless, falls within the plain meaning of the words contained in section 11 of the Enabling Act, “all other actual income”.
It constitutes, therefore, not a part of the permanent school funds, but is ‘ ‘ other actual income * * ® available for the maintenance and support of” the public schools and other named institutions.