Court Opinion

ID: 9536362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:58:28.198881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:21.003561
License: Public Domain

Harvey, C. J.,
concurring specially:
I concur in the opinion written for the court and wish only to stress more definitely a point referred to therein. Our statute (G. S. 1935, 55-201) provides a method to have surrendered an oil and gas lease which has become forfeited. Nothing in it pertains to the forfeiture of a part of the acreage of a lease which has been partially developed. The statement in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Wedell, to the effect that it is conceded the statute was fully complied with, appears inaccurate in that it is too broad. It is true notices were given and other steps taken as outlined in the statute, but the notices did not pertain to the surrender or forfeiture of the lease. Indeed, that was carefully avoided. They related only to a specifically described portion of the leased property. The statute does not authorize that.
An owner of real property leased for oil and gas, where the lessee has partially developed the property, but not as fully as the owner thinks should be done, is not without remedy. He may take the proper steps and proceed in a court of equity for a decree requiring further development of the property or a partial cancellation of the lease.