holding that pooling clauses and the relevant entirety clause affect an NPRI owner’s aggregate ownership
How later courts described this case
- holding that pooling clauses and the relevant entirety clause affect an NPRI owner’s aggregate ownership
- though executive-rights holder has the exclusive right to lease, that right does not extend to pooling a nonparticipating royalty interest (NPRI) because pooling has the effect of diminishing the NPRI's'interest;'however, the NPRI can ratify a pooling agreement and take a propor tional share even if the executive-exceeded its authority in the first instance
- 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
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by London v. Merriman, 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 1222 (1988)
Therefore, London concludes, the result reached by the Verble court simply followed from that act and not from a Ruiz and Montgomery analysis of the lease contract, and Verble is inapplicable to the instant case since no such express ratification offer occurred here.
The opinion
*216 GRIFFIN, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The entirety clause in a lease was never intended to convey and does not convey any interest owned by any land owner or mineral owner in any tract of land in any lease. It merely provides for each person to receive such part of the common production as was the ownership of the one who receives in his original tract of land or minerals.