# Montgomery v. Rittersbacher

> Texas Supreme Court · January 24, 1968 · 11 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768763

## Case

- **Full name:** W. R. MONTGOMERY, Petitioner, v. Charles Edgar RITTERSBACHER Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 24, 1968
- **Citations:** 11 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 186; 424 S.W.2d 210; 27 Oil & Gas Rep. 774; 1968 Tex. LEXIS 347
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Calvert
- **Judges:** Smith, Calvert, Griffin, Walker
- **Cited by:** 56 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/9768763

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that pooling clauses and the relevant entirety clause affect an NPRI owner’s aggregate ownership
- holding that filing suit ratifies a lease as a matter of law
- noting that a principal can ratify the unauthorized acts of an agent by bringing a suit to enforce the unauthorized act

## Opinion text

CALVERT, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissenting opinion filed by Justice Walker. I append the following comment.
The holding of the court is that the filing of suit by Montgomery on May 12, 1964, constituted a ratification of the lease. The parties stipulated that a well was completed as a producer pn the Crutchfield Unit on October 9, 1956, and that shut-in royalty was paid from that date until May, 1958, when actual production was begun. The record reflects that Montgomery knew as early as July, 1957, that the well had been completed. The record thus reflects that Montgomery waited nearly seven years before he ratified the lease.
By agreeing that ratification has been effected by the judgment herein, I do not wish to be understood as agreeing that a non-participating royalty owner, with full knowledge of his rights, cannot lose his right to ratify through laches. See Nugent v. Freeman, 306 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1957, n. r. e.). There was no plea of laches in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768763. Public record. Not legal advice.