Court Opinion

ID: 9832979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:20:52.857613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:56.843638
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In affirming the trial court’s judgment, •we based our affirmance on three grounds, any one of which would require an affirmance. In his motion for rehearing, appellant urges, among other things, that our finding, that appellant was draining through his well No. 2 on the south as much or more oil from the adjoining lands of appellees as they were draining from the north end of his lease, is erroneous in this: That the wells of appel-lees to the north had been draining his lease since 1931 and 1932; that his No. 2 well was not brought in until 1934; and that it drained not the leases of appellees, but lands leased to other oil companies. He requests that we correct our findings accordingly. The evidence indicated that his well No. 1 was draining untrammeled approximately one acre of land; and that well No. 2 drained approximately four acres. We think it is immaterial that all the lands surrounding well No. 2 were not owned by appellees. The result is the same, so long as Edgar is enabled to recover a fair share of the oil beneath his own lands. His advantage in drainage of additional area through the wells already producing, may be sufficient to compensate for the time element of drainage of his lands to the north. But conceding this contention and correcting our findings as requested by appellant, the other grounds stated in our opinion are clearly sufficient to sustain the judgment of the trial court. The motion for rehearing is granted to the extent of correcting our findings as requested, but in all other respects it is overruled.
Granted in part and in part overruled.