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
WALKER, Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion petitioner has heretofore done nothing that would irrevocably bind him to the terms of the lease, and he will not be bound thereby until his tender of ratification is made effective by the judgment rendered in this case. I would hold that he is entitled to his proportionate share of royalties accruing from and after the date of judgment.
CALVERT, C. J., joins in this dissent.