Court Opinion

ID: 9661000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:25:51.635269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:23.989326
License: Public Domain

SMITH, JUSTICE,
concurring.
I concur in the result but do not agree with many of the reasons assigned by the Court as to why the action of the Commissioners in denying Murel Williams a permit was being upheld. In my opinion, the action of the Commissioners in denying the permit was supported by substantial evidence. The evidence is simply this: Williams and Smith Price were the owners of the 3.3 acres involved here. Smith Price executed a pooling agreement covering his undivided 1/2 interest. This 3.3 acres went into the unit. A permit was granted to this unit. Williams deliberately left his 1/2 interest out of both units which had been created. It is my opinion that the 3.3 acres was only entitled to one well and that when the permit was granted, locating the well on one of the tracts with which Price had unitized, the location was just as though the well was actually located on the 3.3-acre tract owned by Williams and Price. Under such circumstances, Williams was not entitled to another well on the 3.3 acres or his one half of that tract. The reasons assigned by Mr. Justice Green-hill for holding against Williams are, in the main, contrary to the well-settled rules of property announced by this Court in *381numerous decisions. In view of other cases pending in this Court, I deem it proper to write my views at this time rather than to. merely note a concurrence.
Opinion delivered April 11, 1962.