Amanda Arceneaux Fontenot v. Texas Company

Fifth Circuit

Amanda Arceneaux Fontenot v. Texas Company

266 F.2d 956, 10 Oil & Gas Rep. 771, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5188

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 1959

Docket17675_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 F.2d 956 (Amanda Arceneaux Fontenot v. Texas Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amanda Arceneaux Fontenot v. Texas Company, 266 F.2d 956, 10 Oil & Gas Rep. 771, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5188 (5th Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a suit for the cancellation of an oil, gas and mineral lease the district court entered a judgment for the defendants which it designated as a summary judgment. It was, however, a judgment entered after a trial before the court without a jury upon agreed facts. The trial court made extended findings and conclusions. Fontenot v. Austral Oil Exploration Company, D.C., 168 F.Supp. 36. The conclusions reached by the district court are warranted by the facts of the particular case. The decision that the lease was not subject to cancellation is affirmed. We think, though, that here as in Amerada Petroleum Corporation v. Doering, 5 Cir., 1937, 93 F.2d 540, 114 A.L.R. 1385, the decree should be so modified as to require the appellees to commence further development or exploration within a fixed time or forfeit the lease. Therefore the decree is modified so that if the appellees shall fail to commence further drilling operations upon the lands suject to the lease within ninety days from the going down of our mandate, the lease shall stand forfeited except as to that portion thereof as the parties have agreed is being held by the producing well now on the leased property. As so modified the decree is affirmed. Costs will be taxed to the appellants.

Modified and affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In a suit for the cancellation of an oil, gas and mineral lease the district court entered a judgment for the defendants which it designated as a summary judgment. It was, however, a judgment entered after a trial before the court without a jury upon agreed facts. The trial court made extended findings and conclusions. Fontenot v. Austral Oil Exploration Company, D.C., 168 F.Supp. 36. The conclusions reached by the district court are warranted by the facts of the particular case. The decision that the lease was not subject to cancellation is affirmed. We think, though, that here as in Amerada Petroleum Corporation v. Doering, 5 Cir., 1937, 93 F.2d 540, 114 A.L.R. 1385, the decree should be so modified as to require the appellees to commence further development or exploration within a fixed time or forfeit the lease. Therefore the decree is modified so that if the appellees shall fail to commence further drilling operations upon the lands suject to the lease within ninety days from the going down of our mandate, the lease shall stand forfeited except as to that portion thereof as the parties have agreed is being held by the producing well now on the leased property. As so modified the decree is affirmed. Costs will be taxed to the appellants.

Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 F.2d 956, 10 Oil & Gas Rep. 771, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amanda-arceneaux-fontenot-v-texas-company-ca5-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack