habendum clause in Kansas

1982The journal entry says Brandenburg’s interest is perpetuated by (1) production or (2) development under the “present leases.” Defendants would have us read the habendum clause:, “for so long ... as oil and gas ... be produced from *158 the respectively described lands under the present leases or the respectively described premises are being developed or operated under present leases.” This would do violence to the wording of the document and would be inconsistent with the rule that a determinable term interest, whether mineral or royalty, perpetuated by production is perpetuated by production

1982The journal entry says Brandenburg’s interest is perpetuated by (1) production or (2) development under the “present leases.” Defendants would have us read the habendum clause:, “for so long ... as oil and gas ... be produced from *158 the respectively described lands under the present leases or the respectively described premises are being developed or operated under present leases.” This would do violence to the wording of the document and would be inconsistent with the rule that a determinable term interest, whether mineral or royalty, perpetuated by production is perpetuated by production

1992Many terms have been implied into unitization agreements, e.g., the implied covenants to explore, develop, or market The plaintiffs argue that in the following cases, this court “has treated the habendum clause as a special limitation on the grant and has required express language to change the effect of the clause.” See Reese Enterprises, Inc., 220 Kan. at 309 (“court of equity has no power to extend a lease beyond the term which the parties themselves have fixed by their written contract”); Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , Syl. ¶ 1, 189 Pac. 920 (1920) (although lessee did not complete the

1992Many terms have been implied into unitization agreements, e.g., the implied covenants to explore, develop, or market The plaintiffs argue that in the following cases, this court “has treated the habendum clause as a special limitation on the grant and has required express language to change the effect of the clause.” See Reese Enterprises, Inc., 220 Kan. at 309 (“court of equity has no power to extend a lease beyond the term which the parties themselves have fixed by their written contract”); Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , Syl. ¶ 1, 189 Pac. 920 (1920) (although lessee did not complete the

1992Many terms have been implied into unitization agreements, e.g., the implied covenants to explore, develop, or market The plaintiffs argue that in the following cases, this court “has treated the habendum clause as a special limitation on the grant and has required express language to change the effect of the clause.” See Reese Enterprises, Inc., 220 Kan. at 309 (“court of equity has no power to extend a lease beyond the term which the parties themselves have fixed by their written contract”); Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , Syl. ¶ 1, 189 Pac. 920 (1920) (although lessee did not complete the

1992Many terms have been implied into unitization agreements, e.g., the implied covenants to explore, develop, or market The plaintiffs argue that in the following cases, this court “has treated the habendum clause as a special limitation on the grant and has required express language to change the effect of the clause.” See Reese Enterprises, Inc., 220 Kan. at 309 (“court of equity has no power to extend a lease beyond the term which the parties themselves have fixed by their written contract”); Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , Syl. ¶ 1, 189 Pac. 920 (1920) (although lessee did not complete the

2010In the absence of *948 production in paying quantities, the lease expires by its own terms.” Welsch, 43 Kan.

2003The court stated that “commercial quantities” as used in a mineral reservation clause has the same meaning as “paying quantities” as used in a habendum clause of an oil and gas lease. 228 Kan. at 592 .

1994However, the words “developed” and “operated” were not made an issue in the case, and the Wagner court did not focus on the additional phrase, interpreting the habendum clause as if it conditioned extension of the lease on continued production alone. 182 Kan. at 88 .

1992“When there is a certain answer as to the term of the lease, that answer can not be changed with words elsewhere not specifically directed to the term of the lease.” 679 S.W.2d at 714 .

1984In Jackson v. Farmer, 225 Kan. 732 , Syl. ¶ 7, 594 P.2d 177 (1979), the court summarized the pertinent rules as follows: “Rules governing the construction of oil and gas leases include these: the intent of the parties is the primary question; meaning should be ascertained by examining the documents from all four corners and by considering all of the pertinent provisions, rather than by critical analysis of a single or isolated provision; reasonable rather than unreasonable interpretations are favored; a practical and equitable construction must be given to ambiguous terms; and any ambiguities

1984In Jackson v. Farmer, 225 Kan. 732 , Syl. ¶ 7, 594 P.2d 177 (1979), the court summarized the pertinent rules as follows: “Rules governing the construction of oil and gas leases include these: the intent of the parties is the primary question; meaning should be ascertained by examining the documents from all four corners and by considering all of the pertinent provisions, rather than by critical analysis of a single or isolated provision; reasonable rather than unreasonable interpretations are favored; a practical and equitable construction must be given to ambiguous terms; and any ambiguities

1983First, such clauses actually modify the lease’s habendum clause to provide for a type of “constructive production.” Davis v. Laster, 242 La. 735, 756-57 , 138 So. 2d 558 (1962).

1983First, such clauses actually modify the lease’s habendum clause to provide for a type of “constructive production.” Davis v. Laster, 242 La. 735, 756-57 , 138 So. 2d 558 (1962).

1982When Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 228 Kan. 426 , 617 P.2d 1255 (1980); Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522 , 608 P.2d 915 (1980); Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609 , 498 P.2d 98 (1972); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658 ; and Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258 , 380 P.2d 379 (1963), are analyzed and read together, we learn that where a defeasible term oil and gas interest is perpetuated by production, production from anywhere on the premises subject to the interest perpetuates the interest in and to the whole premises and if the land

1982When Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 228 Kan. 426 , 617 P.2d 1255 (1980); Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522 , 608 P.2d 915 (1980); Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609 , 498 P.2d 98 (1972); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658 ; and Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258 , 380 P.2d 379 (1963), are analyzed and read together, we learn that where a defeasible term oil and gas interest is perpetuated by production, production from anywhere on the premises subject to the interest perpetuates the interest in and to the whole premises and if the land

1982When Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 228 Kan. 426 , 617 P.2d 1255 (1980); Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522 , 608 P.2d 915 (1980); Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609 , 498 P.2d 98 (1972); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658 ; and Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258 , 380 P.2d 379 (1963), are analyzed and read together, we learn that where a defeasible term oil and gas interest is perpetuated by production, production from anywhere on the premises subject to the interest perpetuates the interest in and to the whole premises and if the land

1982When Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 228 Kan. 426 , 617 P.2d 1255 (1980); Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522 , 608 P.2d 915 (1980); Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609 , 498 P.2d 98 (1972); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658 ; and Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258 , 380 P.2d 379 (1963), are analyzed and read together, we learn that where a defeasible term oil and gas interest is perpetuated by production, production from anywhere on the premises subject to the interest perpetuates the interest in and to the whole premises and if the land

1982The journal entry says Brandenburg’s interest is perpetuated by (1) production or (2) development under the “present leases.” Defendants would have us read the habendum clause:, “for so long ... as oil and gas ... be produced from *158 the respectively described lands under the present leases or the respectively described premises are being developed or operated under present leases.” This would do violence to the wording of the document and would be inconsistent with the rule that a determinable term interest, whether mineral or royalty, perpetuated by production is perpetuated by production

1982When Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 228 Kan. 426 , 617 P.2d 1255 (1980); Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522 , 608 P.2d 915 (1980); Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609 , 498 P.2d 98 (1972); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658 ; and Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258 , 380 P.2d 379 (1963), are analyzed and read together, we learn that where a defeasible term oil and gas interest is perpetuated by production, production from anywhere on the premises subject to the interest perpetuates the interest in and to the whole premises and if the land

1982When Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 228 Kan. 426 , 617 P.2d 1255 (1980); Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522 , 608 P.2d 915 (1980); Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609 , 498 P.2d 98 (1972); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658 ; and Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258 , 380 P.2d 379 (1963), are analyzed and read together, we learn that where a defeasible term oil and gas interest is perpetuated by production, production from anywhere on the premises subject to the interest perpetuates the interest in and to the whole premises and if the land

1982When Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 228 Kan. 426 , 617 P.2d 1255 (1980); Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522 , 608 P.2d 915 (1980); Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609 , 498 P.2d 98 (1972); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658 ; and Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258 , 380 P.2d 379 (1963), are analyzed and read together, we learn that where a defeasible term oil and gas interest is perpetuated by production, production from anywhere on the premises subject to the interest perpetuates the interest in and to the whole premises and if the land

1982When Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 228 Kan. 426 , 617 P.2d 1255 (1980); Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522 , 608 P.2d 915 (1980); Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609 , 498 P.2d 98 (1972); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658 ; and Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258 , 380 P.2d 379 (1963), are analyzed and read together, we learn that where a defeasible term oil and gas interest is perpetuated by production, production from anywhere on the premises subject to the interest perpetuates the interest in and to the whole premises and if the land

1982When Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 228 Kan. 426 , 617 P.2d 1255 (1980); Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522 , 608 P.2d 915 (1980); Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609 , 498 P.2d 98 (1972); Stratmann v. Stratmann, 204 Kan. 658 ; and Dewell v. Federal Land Bank, 191 Kan. 258 , 380 P.2d 379 (1963), are analyzed and read together, we learn that where a defeasible term oil and gas interest is perpetuated by production, production from anywhere on the premises subject to the interest perpetuates the interest in and to the whole premises and if the land

1976R. 3d 8 [1972].) In Tedrow v. Shaffer, 23 Ohio App. 343 , 5 Ohio L.

1976R. 3d 8 [1972].) In Tedrow v. Shaffer, 23 Ohio App. 343 , 5 Ohio L.

1955(Fry v. Dewees, 151 Kan. 488 , 99 P. 2d 844 .) Under the facts and evidence we cannot approve appellants’ theory that the royalty conveyance and lease must be considered as one and the same transaction because the royalty deed conveyed a vested interest in the minerals in place by its very terms which were subject to conditions subsequent whereby the interest would terminate at the end of five years unless there was production.

1955(Fry v. Dewees, 151 Kan. 488 , 99 P. 2d 844 .) Under the facts and evidence we cannot approve appellants’ theory that the royalty conveyance and lease must be considered as one and the same transaction because the royalty deed conveyed a vested interest in the minerals in place by its very terms which were subject to conditions subsequent whereby the interest would terminate at the end of five years unless there was production.

1952(Elliott v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 248 , 187 Pac. 692 ; Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , 189 Pac. 920 ; Perkins v. Sanders, 109 Kan. 372 , 198 Pac. 954 ; Caylor v. Oil Co., 110 Kan. 224 , 203 Pac. 735 ; Warner v. Oil & Gas Co., 114 Kan. 118 , 217 Pac. 288 ; and for a related case see, also, Berline v. Waldschmidt, 159 Kan. 585 , 156 P. 2d 865 .) We need not unduly labor this particular point.

1952(Elliott v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 248 , 187 Pac. 692 ; Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , 189 Pac. 920 ; Perkins v. Sanders, 109 Kan. 372 , 198 Pac. 954 ; Caylor v. Oil Co., 110 Kan. 224 , 203 Pac. 735 ; Warner v. Oil & Gas Co., 114 Kan. 118 , 217 Pac. 288 ; and for a related case see, also, Berline v. Waldschmidt, 159 Kan. 585 , 156 P. 2d 865 .) We need not unduly labor this particular point.

1952(Elliott v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 248 , 187 Pac. 692 ; Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , 189 Pac. 920 ; Perkins v. Sanders, 109 Kan. 372 , 198 Pac. 954 ; Caylor v. Oil Co., 110 Kan. 224 , 203 Pac. 735 ; Warner v. Oil & Gas Co., 114 Kan. 118 , 217 Pac. 288 ; and for a related case see, also, Berline v. Waldschmidt, 159 Kan. 585 , 156 P. 2d 865 .) We need not unduly labor this particular point.

1952(Elliott v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 248 , 187 Pac. 692 ; Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , 189 Pac. 920 ; Perkins v. Sanders, 109 Kan. 372 , 198 Pac. 954 ; Caylor v. Oil Co., 110 Kan. 224 , 203 Pac. 735 ; Warner v. Oil & Gas Co., 114 Kan. 118 , 217 Pac. 288 ; and for a related case see, also, Berline v. Waldschmidt, 159 Kan. 585 , 156 P. 2d 865 .) We need not unduly labor this particular point.

1952(Elliott v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 248 , 187 Pac. 692 ; Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , 189 Pac. 920 ; Perkins v. Sanders, 109 Kan. 372 , 198 Pac. 954 ; Caylor v. Oil Co., 110 Kan. 224 , 203 Pac. 735 ; Warner v. Oil & Gas Co., 114 Kan. 118 , 217 Pac. 288 ; and for a related case see, also, Berline v. Waldschmidt, 159 Kan. 585 , 156 P. 2d 865 .) We need not unduly labor this particular point.

1952(Elliott v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 248 , 187 Pac. 692 ; Baldwin v. Oil Co., 106 Kan. 848 , 189 Pac. 920 ; Perkins v. Sanders, 109 Kan. 372 , 198 Pac. 954 ; Caylor v. Oil Co., 110 Kan. 224 , 203 Pac. 735 ; Warner v. Oil & Gas Co., 114 Kan. 118 , 217 Pac. 288 ; and for a related case see, also, Berline v. Waldschmidt, 159 Kan. 585 , 156 P. 2d 865 .) We need not unduly labor this particular point.