Court Opinion

ID: 9642782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:08:57.627922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:52.486086
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Mr. Justice Culver
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In her motion for rehearing petitioner complains of “the failure to so modify the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals as to give the petitioner her part of the money held by the defendant, Humble Oil & Refining Company, credit of the one-half of the one quarter royalty this court purports to award the petitioner.”
To this respondents reply that no oil or gas has ever been produced from Lot 9 and for that reason petitioner’s ownership of an undivided one-half of the one-fourth royalty under Lot 9 would not authorize her to share in the proceeds from oil and gas produced from Lot 10.
On this point we agree with petitioner. The lease to which Holcombe was a party covers both Lots 9 and 10 and specially provides that the premises shall be developed and operated as one lease, all royalties accruing thereunder shall be treated as an entirety and shall be divided among and paid to the separate owners in proportion that the acreage owned by each bears to the entire leased acreage. Furthermore, Mrs. Knox and her son have treated the two lots as unitized and since production was obtained on Lot 10 in 1947, returns have been paid *591to Holcombe or held for his benefit according to the proportionate interest which stood in his name.
Holding as we have in our original opinion that the royalty interest in Lot 9 is the community property of respondent, Mrs. Knox, and her deceased husband, this property and the proceeds therefrom are subject to the payment of community debts. The balance will be divided between petitioner and respondent.
As considerable returns from this property have been impounded since the filing of this suit, we therefore remand the case to the trial court for a determination of the amount of money due the respective parties and a judgment in accordance with this opinion. Otherwise the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion delivered May 30, 1956.