# Horn v. Skelly Oil Co.

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · January 11, 1954 · 224 La. 709

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671380

## Case

- **Full name:** HORN v. SKELLY OIL CO. Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** January 11, 1954
- **Citations:** 224 La. 709; 70 So. 2d 657; 3 Oil & Gas Rep. 781; 1954 La. LEXIS 1143
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hamiter
- **Judges:** Fournet, Hamiter, Hawthorne
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671380

## Opinion text

HAMITER, Justice
(concurring).
The primary issue now presented by this cause is whether the reservation in favor of the Federal Land Bank in the sale to McRae constituted a mineral royalty interest or a mineral servitude interest. And for determining it consideration of extrinsic evidence is both improper and unnecessary, the controversial provisions, in my opinion, being unambiguous.
Standing alone, the first sentence thereof clearly provides for the creation of a mineral servitude (a use of the property, according to our jurisprudence, for mineral exploration purposes), there having been excepted from the conveyance a one-half interest in and to all minerals and mineral *726 rights. Defense counsel contend, however, that the subsequent language, in the form of a proviso, evidences the reservation of only a mineral royalty interest, it disclosing an intention of the parties “to exclude the Federal Land Bank from the right to go upon, explore for and reduce to possession thej minerals which might be found.”
I do not so interpret the proviso. While intended to modify slightly the use to be made of the reserved servitude, it did not purpose to effect a change in nature or kind of the specifically excepted mineral'interest, as is contended for. Without waiving or relinquishing its right of exploring for the retained minerals or of executing a lease therefor, the vendor merely gave to the purchaser the privilege (not an exclusive one) or the authority of leasing such interest, if and when he could, and then only under certain stipulated conditions. By the proviso, in other words, the Bank authorized McRae to grant a lease on the reserved mineral rights, without joinder of it, if the declared conditions were satisfied; otherwise, he was without that authority.
If the parties had intended that only a royalty interest be reserved there would have been no need or reason for the recited conditions respecting a lease to be granted by the purchaser. The very nature of a royalty interest would have prevented the vendor’s having anything to say about the lease’s execution and composition.
I respectfully concur in the decree.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671380. Public record. Not legal advice.