Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-3483 Page: 2 of 3
3 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
00a
honorable Lester Clark, page 8
shall not expire,oa nor bt operation of law be
abandoned to the surface owner or owners"
The foregoing amendment provides in effort that the
rights of the lessee under an oil and gas lease shall expire at
the end of teon (10) years. unless (I) the lessee exercises his
right to enter and deveop the leased praises within ten (1)
years, or unless (5) the lease provides for a longer period 6
time han ton (10) years and the lessee renders the aleral
rights for taxation and pays the taxes. The amendment does not
expressly state the time from which the ten (10) year period is
to be calculated, but we believe that it is reasonably slear
that the intention is that the ten (10) year period be+giat the
time the lessee's rights first 'acrue and we believe that'the
statutes would be given this construettono See 39 Texas Juris-
prudence, 45, 206.
As to contracts which become effective prior to the
enactment of the proposed statute, we are of the opinion that
the statute is unconstitutional as an impairment of the obliga-
tion of contracts to the extent that it may conflict with the
provisions of such contracts, under the provisions of ArtiOle 1,
Jeotion 16 of the Constitution of Texas, and Article I, Seetion 10
of the United States Constitution, An oil and gas lease is a fon-
tract which creates property rights in real estate in the lessee.
Texas Company. v. Daugherty, 107 Tex. 286, 176 8 ,W 9171 Lenr v.
Garner, 121 Tax. 308, 50 3. W. (24) 769; Brown v. Humble Oil ant
Refining Company,126 Tox. 296, S 8S. w (td) 935, 89 S. W. (8d)
1069, To the extent that the proposed statute would attest to
estropy or impair such rights created by existing contracts which
wore valid at the time of thelr execution, such proposed statute
Would be invalid, International Building and Loan Association v.
Rardy, 86 Tex. 610, 26 8. W. 4973 Thompson v. Cobb, 95 Tex. 140,
5 S . W. 1090, Travelers' Insurance Company v. Marshall, 124 Tex.
76 3. . 12d) 1007; Langever v. Miller, 124 Tex. 80, 76 3. W.
2d) 1025.
As to contracts executed after the effective date of
the proposed statute, we believe that it is unconstitutional
because it denies the right of redemption of land for non-payment
of taxes, which right is siven by Article C, eaotion 13 of the
Texas constitution. Under the proposed statute, the rights of
the lessee would be forfeited, with no right of redemption, upon
& failure either to render the mineral rights for taxation or
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-3483, text, April 30, 1941; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth260714/m1/2/: accessed July 10, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.