Morriss v. First Nat. Bank of Mission
Decision Date | 26 March 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 12352,12352 |
Citation | 249 S.W.2d 269 |
Parties | MORRISS et al. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF MISSION et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Tarlton Morrow, Vinson, Elkins & Weems, Houston, Sawnie B. Smith, Edinburg, Robertson, Jackson, Payne, Lancaster
& Walker, A. W. Walker, Jr., Dallas, for appellants.
Gauis G. Gannon, Houston, Earl A. Brown, Sam H. Field, Dallas, for appellees.
This is an interpleader suit brought by the First National Bank of Mission, Texas, as depository for certain funds payable under an oil and gas lease, to determine whether the funds in dispute are royalties that belong to the non-participating royalty owners as a 'minimum royalty,' or rents or bonus payable to the lessor who owned the leasing or executive rights. The suit is also for a declaratory judgment. The trial court without deciding that the funds were rents or bonus, decided that they were not royalties.
On March 15, 1944, Santa Cruz Farms Company executed an oil and gas lease to Magnolia Petroleum Company on a large tract of land. A resolution of the board of directors of the lessor, Santa Cruz Farms Company, was attached to and recorded with the lease, and it empowered the corporate officers to make the lease 'for an agreed consideration of Five Dollars ($5.00) per acre, said lease to be a primary term of ten (10) years and as long thereafter as oil, gas or other minerals is produced therefrom, and to provide (sic) for a delary rental of Two Dollars ($2.00) per acre during the primary term, and for a minimum royalty of Two Dollars ($2.00) per acre during the primary term and thereafter of One Dollar ($1.00) per acre * * *.'
Paragraph 2 of the lease provides that it is for a primary term of ten years 'and as long thereafter as oil, gas or other mineral is produced from said land * * *.' The other pertinent portions of the lease are:
* * *
Paragraph 12 of the lease permits lessee to surrender the lease in whole or in part, but provides further: 'thereupon Lessee shall be relieved from all obligations, expressed or implied, of this agreement as to the acreage so surrendered, but such release shall in no wise affect or diminish the amount of minimum royalty and delay rental payable hereunder as provided in Paragraphs 4 and 14 hereof.'
The lease was executed for a cash bonus of approximately $40,000 and delay rentals were paid for three years. On May 9, 1947, a gas well was completed that had a potential of 11,500,000 cubic feet of gas a day. Although it was a well producing gas in paying quantities, it was shut-in and has been shut-in continuously since that date. Since that time the lessee, Magnolia Petroleum Company, has paid annually the sums required of it by the lease. Since May 9, 1947, the total sum of $63,818 has been paid under the terms of the lease.
Some of the appellants are owners of royalty reservations or grants made prior to the date of the lease to Magnolia Petroleum Company, and others hold their interests by conveyances after the execution of the lease. We think the questions in the case may be decided without regard to the time the royalty interests were acquired.
When Santa Cruz Farm Company executed the lease to Magnolia Petroleum Company, it undoubtedly possessed the power to do so, and it was the owner of the exclusive leasing privileges or executive rights. At the time of the trial, Hidalgo-Willacy Oil Company had succeeded to those rights. That company at no time owned the surface to the lands in question.
The controversy in this case is whether, under the terms of the lease, the funds paid by Magnolia Petroleum Company as lessee, after May 9, 1947, the day the producing gas well was completed, are royalty or something else. Hidalgo-Willacy Oil Company, as the owner of the rentals and bonus, contends that the payments are not royalty. Appellants contend that the payments by the lessee, under the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 14 of the lease, are 'minimum royalties,' in which they as royalty owners should share.
Whatever the revenues may be determined to be, Magnolia Petroleum Company paid the exact amount required by the lease, and its rights under the lease are not here brought in question. No one by proper point complains about the method of payment, nor that payments were made to the depository bank rather than distributed among the royalty owners. That the lessor or depository bank were made the payee by the lease is important only insofar as it may indicate the intention of the parties as to the nature of the payment.
Our attention will first be directed at the lease itself to see if it reveals the intention of the parties. Paragraph 3(b) provides for a gas royalty and states: 'and where not sold shall pay Fifty ($50.00) Dollars per annum as royalty from each such well, and while such royalty is so paid, such well shall be held to be a producing well under paragraph two hereof.' The trial court held that the sum of $50, paid for the shut-in gas well on the leased land, was royalty and that the royalty owners would share in those payments. No appeal was made and no point is before us challenging that holding. When the gas well was brought in as a producer and then shut in, certain provisions of the lease came into operation for the first time. Prior to that occurrence, there was no question that the lessor was entitled to the funds paid as delay rentals under the provisions of paragraph 4 of the lease. To determine the nature of payments made after that occurrence, and to decide who should receive them, it is necessary to determine whether there was in fact production as contemplated by the lease. Paragraph 2 of the lease provides that the lease is for a ten-year primary term and 'as long thereafter as oil, gas or other mineral is produced from said land.' Paragraph 3 expressly provides that in the instance of a well where the gas is not sold, that $50 shall be paid annually as royalty, and while such royalty is paid, 'such well shall be held to be a producing well,' insofar as paragraph 2 is concerned. That paragraph states precisely that the situation that here exists constitutes a producing well. Since the royalty has been paid on the well, that is equivalent to production and sufficient to hold the entire acreage covered by the lease. We therefore have a producing well such as may hold the lease indefinitely, and that production or substituted production has never ceased. Freeman v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 141 Tex. 274, 171 S.W.2d 339.
The fact of production worked a change of the relations theretofore existing between the parties to the lease....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Faith United Methodist Church v. Morgan
...arising out of such words or some provision thereof or purpose expressed by it.”). 121.Shell Oil Co. v. Manley Oil Corp., 124 F.2d at 715. 122.Morriss v. First Nat. Bank of Mission, 249 S.W.2d 269, 275 (Tex.Civ.App.1952). 123.Stucki v. Parker, 703 P.2d at 695. 124. At the same time the resp......
-
Enerquest Oil & Gas, LLC v. Exploration
...361 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.Civ.App.1962)). Bonuses are also frequently computed at a cash amount per acre. See Morriss v. First Nat'l Bank of Mission, 249 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Civ.App.1952). In simple transactions, it is not difficult to designate a particular payment as a bonus or a delay rental; many......
-
Davis v. Laster
...and implied covenants of the lease. A similar result was reached by a Texas court of civil appeals in Morriss v. First Nat. Bank of Mission, Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1952, 249 S.W.2d 269. Under the terms of the particular lease therein involved, under which the lessee was obligated to mak......
-
Bradshaw v. Steadfast Fin., L.L.C.
...v. Buckalew, 521 S.W.2d 904, 911 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.); and Morriss v. First National Bank of Mission, 249 S.W.2d 269, 276 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1952, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The fiduciary duty arises from the relationship of the parties and not from the contract. See......
-
CHAPTER 11 LEASE ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR TITLE EXAMINATION
...2d 1095 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1983); Carlisle v. United Producing Co., 278 F.2d 893 (10th Cir. 1960); Morris v. First Nat'l Bank of Mission, 249 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. App. 1952)). See also La. Stat. Ann. § 31:213(4) ("Rental" does not include payments classified by a lease as constructive production......
-
What Surface Interest Owners Should Know Before Aquiring Oil and Gas Interests-part I
...44. See, e.g., Cambridge Oil Co. v. Huggins, 765 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.App. Corpus Christi 1989); Ness v. First National Bank of Mission, 249 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Civ.App. 1952, error ref'd n.r.e.); Wagoner Oil & Gas Co. v. Marlow, 278 P. 294 (Okla. 1929). Column Eds.: B. Joseph Krabacher ofKrabacher,......