{ "id": 1627321, "name": "Edward McNEILL v. Don H. PEAKER et al", "name_abbreviation": "McNeill v. Peaker", "decision_date": "1973-01-08", "docket_number": "5-6003", "first_page": "747", "last_page": "749", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "253 Ark. 747" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "488 S.W.2d 706" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "283 S.W. 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ark. 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1369395 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/171/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.W.2d 1036", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1934, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 Ark. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1425592 ], "year": 1934, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/189/0087-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 279, "char_count": 3877, "ocr_confidence": 0.834, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.972865056490127e-08, "percentile": 0.42217461326895894 }, "sha256": "7f81bf7f4aee14f966634f09ad9f42d500b761cd71619ed1fa6960e22fc541e1", "simhash": "1:b85740f0421b03db", "word_count": 622 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Edward McNEILL v. Don H. PEAKER et al" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant McNeill brought this action to cancel oil and gas leases which he had acquired on certain lands. He later assigned these leases to appellee Peaker. In these assignments, appellant reserved an overriding royalty in a percentage of the production. He received no cash or other consideration for the assignments. Peaker assigned the working interest to certain appellees, reserving also an overriding royalty interest, which he then assigned to others. This working interest was subsequently assigned by various appellees to other appellees who continued to produce some of the leases until the wells were abandoned and releases made to the original lessors.\nAppellant alleged in his complaint (others by cross-complaint), as overriding royalty owner, that appellees had breached the implied covenants to reasonably develop and protect the premises from drainage by offsetting wells. It was alleged that such covenants are implied as a matter of law in an assignment in which the royalty reserve is a principal consideration. It is undisputed that the various assignments did not contain any express obligations or covenants of any kind. The chancellor sustained appellees\u2019 motion for summary judgment.\nOn appeal appellant contends that the alleged implied covenants exist in favor of appellant, as an overriding royalty owner, and, therefore, the chancellor erred in sustaining the motion for summary judgment. Appellant asserts that \u201cthe motion for summary judgment involves the legal question of whether the covenants which the law implies in the ordinary oil and gas lease are necessarily implied in a sublease or assignment of an oil and gas lease in which royalty **** constitutes the principal consideration of the contract.\u201d\nWe think the chancellor was correct. The law in our state does not recognize implied covenants on the part of an assignee of an interest in an oil and gas lease to an oil payment owner who is not a lessor. Henderson Co. v. Murphy, 189 Ark. 87, 70 S.W.2d 1036 (1934). Appellant contends that this case is not controlling in the case at bar inasmuch as an overriding royalty in a percentage of the production was retained rather than the reservation of a deferred oil payment. We cannot agree that this distinction is applicable. In fact, authority relied upon in Henderson holds contrary to appellant\u2019s position. In construing our opinion in Henderson, we see no difference in an oil payment ownership and the overriding royalty in the case at bar. Both relate to the retention of a named interest in real estate as between an assignor and assignee. Furthermore, our holding in Henderson has become a longstanding rule of property law in this state. In assignments, such as these in the instant case, the assignor and assignee are usually experienced in the oil business and knowledgable enough to make certain any uncertainty by inserting provisions which protect the assignor\u2019s interests if he deems it necessary. See Merrill, Covenants Implied in Oil and Gas Leases, 2d. Ed., \u00a7 186. Appellant\u2019s \u201crights must depend, as said in Murdock v. Sure Oil Corp., 171 Ark. 61, 283 S.W. 4 [1926] \u2018on the protection paragraph of the written assignment,\u2019 and, there being no right **** here asserted, his action must fail.\u201d Henderson Co. v. Murphy, supra.\nWe agree with the appellant, however, that \u201call pleadings and other voluminous matters in cases 9202 and 9290\u201d were improperly included in the transcript over appellant\u2019s objection. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to recover from those appellees responsible for the inclusion the asserted sum of $600 as being an unnecessary cost of the appeal.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Frank Holt, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Chambers ir Chambers and Keith, Clegg \u00e9 Eckert, for appellant.", "Mahony ir Yocum and H. Derrell Dickens, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Edward McNEILL v. Don H. PEAKER et al\n5-6003\n488 S.W. 2d 706\nOpinion delivered January 8, 1973\nChambers ir Chambers and Keith, Clegg \u00e9 Eckert, for appellant.\nMahony ir Yocum and H. Derrell Dickens, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0747-01", "first_page_order": 791, "last_page_order": 793 }