Court Opinion

ID: 9779001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:32:00.746043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:19.167226
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee has filed a strong motion for rehearing and on the assignments therein Chief Justice DIXON dissents to our original disposition of the cause, making it advisable that we re-examine the record and supplement our original opinion.
Appellee Renwar Oil Corporation is a resident of Dallas County and as such could be sued in Dallas County unless the action here is one which falls within exception 14, Art. 1995, R.C.S., which provides:
“Lands. — Suits for the recovery of lands or damages thereto, or to remove incumbrances upon the title to land, or to quiet the title to land, or to prevent or stay waste on lands, must be brought in the county in which the land, or a part thereof, may lie.”
It is appellants’ contention that this action is one to construe the lease contract in question and to declare the effect thereof to be that appellants are entitled to receive thereunder ¾6⅛ of the value of the oil produced and marketed from any wells already drilled or that may be hereafter drilled on the land in question; for discovery of the amount now due and for a personal judgment against appellee for such amount, and for interest thereon from the date it was due; for costs and such other relief as they may be entitled to.
We are of the opinion that Goodrich v. Superior Oil Co., 150 Tex. 159, 237 S.W.2d 969, by our Supreme Court, while not directly in point on the facts, states the applicable law here at page 973 as follows:
“The suggested suit would appear to •be more in the nature of a declaratory judgment suit or suit to determine the correct amount owed by the plaintiff than of a suit to remove cloud within the meaning of subdivision 14 of Art. 1995. (Citing authorities.)”
*293A lack of necessary parties is not before the court on a plea of privilege since that question does not arise until after the question of venue is finally determined. Seeds v. Edgerton, Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W.2d 987 and cases there cited.
In our opinion the suit here goes no further than to declare the rights of the parties under the contract (the oil lease) and for a money judgment for the royalty due for oil already produced under the lease involved.
The motion for rehearing should be overruled. It is so ordered.
DIXON, C. J., dissents.