Olin Gas Transmission Corp. v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 30 June 1961
• Docket Number: No. 5339,5339
• Citation: 132 So.2d 721
• Parties: OLIN GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION et al., v. Walter J. HARRISON et al., and STATE of Louisiana et al.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 721

132 So.2d 721

OLIN GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION et al.,

v.

Walter J. HARRISON et al., and STATE of Louisiana et al.

No. 5339.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 30, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 1961.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 6, 1961.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., John L. Madden, Marc Dupuy, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

Henican, James & Cleveland, Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke & Hopkins, New Orleans, Harvey Peltier and Donald Peltier, Thibodaux, for appellees.

Before ELLIS, LOTTINGER, HERGET, JONES and LANDRY, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

This is a concursus proceeding instituted by Olin Gas Transmission Corp., H. L. Hunt, and Secure Trusts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, represented by Sidney Lathan, Trustee (hereinafter referred to collectively as 'Olin'). Walter J. Harrison, William H. Harrison, Mrs. Lydia Harrison Courturie and John Pitre (hereinafter collectively called 'The Harrisons'), as private claimants who oppose the State of Louisiana, joined by the State Mineral Board and the Register of the State Land Office (hereinafter referred to as 'The State'), in a contest for funds on deposit and to be deposited in the Registry of the Court in this proceeding.

At the commencement of these proceedings, the funds deposited in the Registry of the Court represented Royalties from the sale of oil produced from a well located in the bed of Round Lake, particularly in the southern or southwestern portion thereof. Round Lake is situated in Sections 3, 4, 9 and 10, Township 20 South of Range 23 East, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana within the Southeast Land District of Louisiana West of the Mississippi River. The well was located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 20 South, Range 23 East. This well was not unitized and, consequently, Olin alleged that it held an oil, gas and mineral lease from the State of Louisiana covering the beds and bottoms of all state-owned water bodies in Section 9, and that it held a lease from the Harrisons covering all of said Section.

The Harrisons answered the original petition and joined issue on all water bottoms of Section 9, tracing their alleged title from state patents and mesne conveyances, denying the existence of Round Lake in 1812 and the navigability of such lake from 1812 to the present time, and pleading the prescription of six years under Act 62 of 1912, LSA-R.S. 9:5661.

John Pitre responded to said petition, following generally the allegations of the Harrisons' answer, asserting title to the Harrisons, and claiming an undivided 1/150th interest from production, as evidenced by an alleged transfer of such interest to him by the Harrisons.

The state then answered the original petition, alleging that the waters of Round Lake, within the limits aforementioned, were navigable in 1812 when Louisiana was admitted as a state into the Union, and alternatively pleading that if it not be established that Round Lake was navigable in 1812, said water body has since become navigable, and that in either event the bed of Round Lake was owned by the State by virtue of its inherent sovereignty.

Depositions were thereafter taken on March 26, 1957, the testimony being limited, as far as counsel could reasonably control it, to those water bottoms lying in Section 9, Township 20 South, Range 23 East, involved in the proceedings, as reflected in the original petition. This well located in Section 9, originally productive of oil, is now depleted, having produced from February, 1956 to January 14, 1957.

After the discover of the oil well in Section 9, Olin discovered the Lake Enfermer gas field and on May 1, 1956, the Commissioner of Conservation established by Order 340, seven gas units embracing areas within Sections 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11 and 15, Township 20 South, Range 23 East, and Sections 33, 34 and 35, Township 19 South, Range 23 East, and the units were denominated 1 through 7. Based upon such unit configurations, voluntary unitizations coexistent with Conservation Commissioner's Orders were executed by all parties in interest, including the Harrisons and the State, acting through the State Mineral Board. It was undertaken in such voluntary unit agreements to point out the area in ownership dispute and to allocate proportionate participation to same.

In August, 1957 Olin decided to amend its petition in the suit then pending and to file two additional concursus proceedings, in order to deal with disputed or contested areas throughout the seven units. Olin's supplemental and amending petition brought the disputed areas of Units 5 and 6 into the controversy pending in Suit 12,016.

Olin's alleged lease from the Harrisons included the lands in Units 5 and 6, and the applicable state leases involving such units, in addition to State Lease No. 2767, were State Leases Nos. 2094 and 2907. Such leases were introduced in evidence in the trial of this suit.

Answering the supplemental and amending petition, the Harrisons traced their alleged title to the areas added by reference to state patents and denying the past and present navigability of the water bodies within Units 5 and 6. The state answered the supplemental and amending petition in November, 1957, but John Pitre did not answer the supplemental and amending petition until after depositions were taken on March 26, 1958. These depositions were divided into two parts, one dealing with water bodies involved in Suit No. 12,016 and the other with those pertaining to Suits Nos. 12,563 and 12,564. We are now concerned with the former only.

The state answered Olin's supplemental and amending petition, averring that State Leases Nos. 2767, 2094 and 2907 covered the water bottoms included in the original and supplemental and amending petitions, admitting the existence of Units 5 and 6 and the execution of voluntary unitization agreements co-extensively with the order of the Commissioner of Conservation, claiming title to all of the water bottoms embraced in Units 5 and 6, based upon the navigability of such water bodies in 1812 when Louisiana was admitted as a state into the Union, and in the alternative pleading that, should the court find that such water bodies were not navigable in 1812, the same had since become navigable and that the beds thereof belonged to the state by virtue of its inherent sovereignty.

John Pitre's answer to Olin's supplemental and amending petition, followed in all material and substantive respects the answer of the Harrisons to said petition, alleging the ownership of the area or areas in dispute to be vested in the Harrisons, and claiming an undivided 1/150th interest in all production from the area involved, based upon an alleged transfer of such interest to him by the Harrisons. The State filed a supplemental and amending answer to both Olin's original and its supplemental and amending petitions, interposing a special plea of estoppel against the Harrisons and adding an alternative plea that the record in the suit of Harrison v. Grandison Company, Civil Action No. 292, United States District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, 51 F.Supp. 768, made an exhibit in the state's supplemental and amending answer, be accepted, and considered with the other evidence in the pending suit.

After trial on the merits, the lower court awarded judgment in favor of the Harrisons and against the State holding 'that the beds and bottoms of Round Lake and of the streams to the north within Unit No. 5 of Order No. 340 of the Department of Conservation, as well as the beds and bottoms of the streams running north of Round Lake located within Unit No. 6, created by said Order No. 340 of the Department of Conservation, belonged to the Harrisons'. From this judgment the State has prosecuted this appeal contending that the lower court erred in the following respects:

Specification of Errors

1. In failing to adjudicate on all of the RES, or the ownership of all of the funds deposited in the Registry of the Court in this proceeding, and on all of the issues between claimants.

2. In rejecting the State's Plea of Estoppel and its Alternative Plea and in excluding from evidence the record of the case of Joseph DeFuentes Harrison v. The Grandison Company, C.A. No. 292, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 51 F.Supp. 768.

3. In not applying the proper tests of navigability in passing on the water beds involved in this proceeding and in failing to pass upon the navigability of each water body separately, each differing from the other on the basis of the testimony.

4. In not giving adequate weight to all the testimony offered on the issue of present day navigability and in pretermitting the fact and effect thereof.

5. In misinterpreting and incorrectly applying Act 62 of 1912 (R.S. 9:5661) as regards the patents offered in evidence herein by the private claimants in this proceeding.

For purposes of clarity the assignment of alleged error on the part of the trial judge will be treated separately, but not necessarily in the order presented.

The State's Motion to Remand

Counsel for the State contends that the trial judge failed to determine the ownership rights in the proceeds from the well located in an arm or inlet of Round Lake within the NW1/4 of Section 9, Township 20 South, Range 23 East. Further, counsel for the State contends that the ownership of all water bottoms located in Section 9 were at issue including the bottoms of Palmetto Bayou, Bay Rambo, and Lasseigne Lane, and that the trial court only decided the ownership of the water bottom of Round Lake.

Strictly speaking of the funds in dispute, we find that said funds represent royalties from three producing wells. Funds from the non-unitized well now depleted, located in Round Lake were the object of the original concursus proceedings. Funds from wells located in Units 5 and 6 to the north of Round Lake were the object of the supplemental and amended petition of Olin.

The District Court decreed as follows:

'It Is...