Court Opinion

ID: 9858961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 17:49:22.415102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:12:33.615876
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
*609PER CURIAM.
In an application for a rehearing, counsel for plaintiff assert, inter alia, that the statement in our opinion that the Conservation Commissioner found “ * * * that there is a barrier or fault at or near the section line running through the center of the original unit where the well was required to be located by Order No. 164; * * * ” is not supported by the allegations of the petition or the exhibits thereto attached and that, as a matter of fact, it is shown by a contour map made part of plaintiff’s pleadings that the barrier is approximately one-half mile east of the original unit which was composed of the E}^ of Section 32 and the Wi/£ of Section 33.
A review of the record confirms counsel’s contention that our statement as to the location of the barrier is not accurate. However, the error is not material and does not affect our conclusion that plaintiff has not stated a case of actionable fraud entitling him to a dissolution of the mineral lease.
We have carefully examined counsel’s other complaints and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is refused.
HAWTHORNE and HAMLIN, JJ., are of the opinion that a rehearing should be granted.