Court Opinion

ID: 9858138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:16:14.039206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:19.087736
License: Public Domain

HAMITER, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I disagree with that part of the decision which denies to plaintiffs recovery of the contracted royalty of 1%% of defendant’s interest from the Fitzsimmons well.
In the agreement between the litigants it was stipulated that if the defendant did *860not drill on the leased premises but brought in a commercial producer on land under lease to it located within 1,320 feet of said premises, plaintiffs would be paid royalty of 1%% of defendant’s interest in the production of the well until such time as defendant obtained production from plaintiffs’ property. But according to the majority opinion this contract provision has been rendered ineffective by the unitization orders of the Conservation Department, along with the drilling of the Fitzsimmons well, under the authority of the several cited cases decided by this court which announce the doctrine that where private contractual rights are in conflict with the valid orders of the Commissioner the former must yield and are superseded by the latter.
The reason for or theory of the decision in each of the cited cases, as I appreciate those authorities, was that the conflicting and superseding valid order of the Commissioner prevented the lessee from carrying out his agreement and, as a consequence, rendered it inoperative. In the instant case, however, the defendant has not shown that it has been prevented by a Department of Conservation order from fulfilling the above mentioned provision of its lease. Defendant’s well on the Fitzsimmons' tract, located within 1,320, feet of plaintiffs’ premises, was not drilled until after the issuance of the unitization orders of the Commissioner; and it cannot be said with certainty that the latter would have denied to defendant permission to drill such well (only one was authorized for the unit) on plaintiffs’ property had application therefor been made (this was not done). If defendant had applied for such permission (as it was authorized by law to do) and had obtained it, a complete compliance with the lease provision in question could have been accomplished.