Court Opinion

ID: 9828224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:13:16.273654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.064868
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The motion has been carefully considered, but is overruled, upon the conclusion that the original disposition of the appeal was correct. However, the appellants’ request for additional findings of fact, to the extent set out in the 6th paragraph of the motion, is granted, and the facts are found to be, as thus therein recited by them, to-wit:
“Appellants were the subdividers and dedicators. The property was Mrs. Lack-ner’s separate estate. It was stipulated in the agreed statement of facts that she had never parted with the mineral estate in the street area involved, unless she must be deemed to have ¡parted with same by the twenty-six deeds from her to various lot purchasers within the drilling block of 19.86 acres, the deed to appellees being typical in all pertinent provisions. It was stipulated in the agreed statement of facts that this suit involved the mineral estate in 4.76 acres of the street area within said drilling block in the Eureka oil field as shown by map. That appellees claim the mineral estate in the streets, within their drilling permit area, by virtue of deed to Lot 342 from appellant and a pooling of twenty-three individual leases made by the respective lot owners within the said area. The street area made up 4.76 acres and the lot area 15.10 acres. Appellees obtained permit from the Railroad Commission of Texas to drill on said 19.86 acres December 8, 1939. Appellees commenced their well within said permit area February 15, 1940, completed it as a producer of oil and gas March 5, 194-0. The parties agreed on the market value of the oil produced and the quantity produced prior to the trial. Eureka Oil Field rules adopted by the Railroad Commission provided minimum drilling units of 20 acres, unless an exception was granted as was done to appellees, and provided that wells would be allowed production by assigning 50 per cent to the well and fifty per cent to the acreage. Production of units of iess than 20 acres to be determined by their ratio to 20 acres. The Commission under said rule allowed appellees to produce the daily quantities set out as in schedule at Statement of Facts page 49. The cost of drilling and equipping the well and producing the oil was also agreed on and stated, to be used if it became material. The map shows that the contiguous area in the drilling block is composed of Lots 340, 341 and 342, containing 2.85 acres West of Beall Street, South of 19th Street, and North of 18th Street. The streets claimed by Mrs. Lack-ner separate such lots from the rest of the drilling block.”
Motion refused.