Gibson v. Turner

joined by Justice Culver dissenting.

As the author of the original opinion of the Court now withdrawn on rehearing, I submit herewith, by way of dissent and in the interest of time, the same opinion with exception of the statement of the facts, which substantially corresponded to that of the new opinion of the Court:

We shall assume that the royalty clause, in consonance with decisions such as Lacy v. Jarrett, Texas Civ. App., 214 S.W. 2d 692, wr. of er. refused, refers to and describes 1/8 of 40/40 of the total production from Survey 14, and that there is nothing on the face of the lease, or…