Robinson v. North American Royalties, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1985
• Docket Number: No. 85-C-0692,85-C-0692
• Citation: 470 So.2d 112
• Parties: A.J. ROBINSON, Jr. v. NORTH AMERICAN ROYALTIES, INC., David C. Bintliff and the Stone Oil Company. 470 So.2d 112
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 112

470 So.2d 112

A.J. ROBINSON, Jr. v. NORTH AMERICAN ROYALTIES, INC., David C. Bintliff and the

Stone Oil Company.

No. 85-C-0692.

470 So.2d 112

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 7, 1985.

PER CURIAM.

The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's maintaining of defendant's exception of no cause of action on the basis that "the sublease which Stone Oil acquired from North American covered only the land located within the boundaries of the 13,850 foot RA SU A production unit". ¹ 463 So.2d 1384, at 1388 (La.App.1985). Plaintiff's application for certiorari to this court asserts that:

"By taking a farmout of the Petitjean Lease from North American, Stone Oil acquired the right to explore and develop the entirety of the Petitjean Lease, which right North American previously owned. It was contemplated that Stone Oil would drill a test well and earn an interest in the acreage upon completion of a well capable of production in paying quantities. A test well was completed, Stone Oil earned its interest in the acreage and has recognized Robinson's override as to the acreage it was assigned. However, the sublease of a portion of the Petitjean Lease to Stone Oil did not end Stone's farmout rights and in fact was only one step in the transaction. Stone Oil had rights and opportunities afforded it by the farmout agreement to develop the remainder of the Petitjean acreage. Instead, it attempted to circumvent any obligations arising out of the contractoral relationship between Robinson, North American and Stone Oil by allowing the farmout and Petitjean Lease to expire and obtaining a new lease from the Petitjeans. If the ruling of the Third Circuit is allowed to stand, Stone Oil will have accomplished exactly what the anti-washout provision was designed to prevent." (Emphasis supplied, footnotes omitted)

Thus, the application, while conceding that the sublease covered only the area within the units, asserts that the farmout agreement prior to the sublease covered the entirety of the original lease to plaintiff. ² However, neither of these documents is attached to the petition.

No evidence may be offered at any time to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action. La.C.C.P. Art. 931. In deciding an exception of no cause of action, the court accepts the facts alleged in the petition, without reference to any extraneous supporting or controverting evidence, and determines whether the law affords any relief to plaintiff if those facts are proved at trial.

Perhaps the...