Mt. Forest Fur Farms of America, Inc. v. Cockrell

• Decision Date: 26 March 1934
• Docket Number: 31791
• Citation: 179 La. 795,155 So. 228
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: MT. FOREST FUR FARMS OF AMERICA, Inc., v. COCKRELL

155 So. 228

179 La. 795

MT. FOREST FUR FARMS OF AMERICA, Inc., v. COCKRELL

No. 31791

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 26, 1934

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1934

Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines; J. Claude Mereaux, Judge.

Suit by the Mount Forest Fur Farms of America, Incorporated, against Ernest Cockrell. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Lazarus Weil & Lazarus and Isaac S. Heller, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Herold Cousin & Herold, of Shreveport, for appellee.

Neil A. Armstrong, curator ad hoc.

OVERTON Justice. ODOM, J., dissents. ST. PAUL, J., absent.

OPINION

OVERTON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action in a suit to recover $ 50,000 paid by the Gulf Refining Company to defendant on account of a mineral lease, and for an accounting of such other sums as defendant may have received in the granting of the lease, or for extensions thereof.

The facts out of which the suit grows, as appears from the petition, are that in April, 1927, defendant sold to a corporation, styled the Mt. Forest Fur Farm, a 127/150 undivided interest in a 52,000-acre tract of marsh land in Plaquemines parish, reserving to himselfcertain mineral rights. The reservation was prepared by defendant and, at his instance, was inserted in the act of sale. The reservation, which it is important to observe carefully, reads as follows:

"This vendor [that is defendant] is vested with and retains for himself, his heirs and assigns, and reserves from this sale, a perpetual royalty, equal to one-eighth of all minerals, including oil, gas, and sulphur, which may be found in, under, upon or beneath the lands hereinabove described, together with perpetual and exclusive rights to make and execute mineral leases on all or any portion of said lands for the exploration, development, production and marketing of any and all of said minerals, and also including perpetual rights of ingress and egress solely for said purpose of exploration, development, production and marketing of said minerals at all times, and likewise the use of so much of the surface of said premises as may be found necessary and convenient for the exploration, development, production and marketing of said minerals which may be found and produced from said premises." (Italics ours.)

Nearly two years after the execution of this sale, containing the mineral reservation, defendant executed a mineral lease on the property to the Gulf Refining Company of Louisiana for $ 10 and other valuable considerations. In fact, defendant received from the Gulf Refining Company, as appears from the allegations of the petition, aside from the right to royalties, a bonus of $ 25,000 for the lease. Later, he received $ 25,000 additional from the Gulf Refining Company, for an extension of time on the lease within which to explore for minerals. These amounts, as well as such other sums as defendant may have received by granting the lease and extending the term or terms thereof, are the amounts which plaintiff demands in this suit from defendant.

It may be observed here, at least for purposes of clarity, that, in granting the foregoing lease and the extension thereof, defendant did so in his own right, and not as agent for anyone.

After defendant had granted the lease,...