Court Opinion

ID: 9827185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:15:55.682635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:25.821668
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On re-examination of the statement of facts (pages 14, 15, 19, and 28, 42, 43, 44) we find that in ascertaining the sums due the Panhandle Oil & Refining Company, to which that company is justly entitled to an equitable lien together with others as provided for in the opinion, we omitted $600 which should be added to the judgment we have rendered. This $600 was a part of $1,200 borrowed by the agent of Roy F. Wright of the Panhandle Oil & Refining Company to put the well, after drilled, upon the pump. Of this $1,200, $600 was paid to Morris Persky, for which, in our opinion and judgment, credit was given the Panhandle Company. The remaining $600 we find was appropriated by the representatives of Wright in the payment for other labor and material used in putting the well upon the pump. It is accordingly ordered that our original opinion and judgment in this case be so corrected as to show the Panhandle Company entitled to receive this additional sum as a part of the fund for which it has been adjudged an equitable lien together with Robert Mathis.
In oral argument on the’motion, fear was expressed lest our opinion be construed as holding that the laborer’s lien, such as claimed by Robert Mathis and his assignors, extended to the oil after its production as well as to the leasehold estate itself. As to this we think it sufficient to say that that question’ was neither presented, considered, nor determined by us.
In all other respects the motion for rehearing is overruled.