holding that under Proceeds Royalty Provisions “royalties . . . are to be paid on amounts actually received and lawfully retained by the producer[,]” but also noting that “all sales by the producer were made at the wellhead”
How later courts described this case
- holding that under Proceeds Royalty Provisions “royalties . . . are to be paid on amounts actually received and lawfully retained by the producer[,]” but also noting that “all sales by the producer were made at the wellhead”
- considering when claims were “alive” under applicable statutes of limitations in determining whether claims coexisted for purposes of K.S.A. § 60-213(d)
- interest on excess royalties which were not paid by defendant
- "Where a party retains and makes actual use of money belonging to another, equitable principles require that it pay interest on the money so retained and used."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*486 Schroeder, J.,
concurring and dissenting:
I would affirm the trial court’s decision and identify with “Position 1” indicated in the court’s opinion. The reasons for my dissent herein are fully stated in my dissenting opinion in Waechter v. Amoco Production Co., 217 Kan. 489, 521 , 537 P. 2d 228 .