Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Elson v. Mathewes, 69 So. 2d 734.

17 citing documents.

Adobe Oil & Gas Corp. v. MacDonell 480 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
(1953); Childs v. Washington, 229 La.
Sandefer & Andress, Inc. v. Pruitt 471 So. 2d 933 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
White v. Evans 457 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
(1953); Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Barousse, 238 La.
Allied Chemical Corp. v. Despot 414 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
a.1956) the Supreme Court of our state with Chief Justice Fournet, writing the opinion held that: `It logically follows, therefore, that if the landowner and the mineral owner can by agreement extend the servitude as to a portion only of the acreage without by such act interrupting the tolling of prescription as to the servitude on the remainder of the tract, as held in Elson v. Mathewes, supra [ , (1953)], and if the mineral owner can divide the advantages of a servitude by assigning to a third
Armstrong v. RED RIVER, ATCHAFALAYA, ETC., LEVEE BD. 278 So. 2d 496 La. 1973
Trunkline Gas Company v. Steen 187 So. 2d 720 La. 1966
Frey v. Miller 165 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
ustice Fournet, as the organ of the Court in the Childs case, supra, made the following comments: "It logically follows, therefore, that if the landowner and the mineral owner can by agreement extend the servitude as to a portion only of the acreage without by such act interrupting the tolling of prescription as to the servitude on the remainder of the tract, as held in Elson v. Mathewes, supra [ , ], and if the mineral owner can divide the advantages of a servitude by assigning to a third perso
Montie v. Sabine Royalty Company 161 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
The Court answered this question by stating, "It suffices to deduce, as we do, that production from the Harmon-A-Unit well constituted, by virtue of the unitization agreement, production from part of the lands subjected to the mineral royalties and thereby interrupted the prescription accruing under these royalty rights unless, as was found in Elson v. Mathewes [ , ], supra, the royalty rights were divided conventionally by the pooling agreement under which the Harmon-A-Unit was formed."
Odom v. Union Producing Company 141 So. 2d 649 La. 1962
See, , ; Childs v. Washington, 229 La.
Collins v. Hunter Co. 128 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
931 , ; Elson v. Mathewes, 1953, , ; Childs v. Washington, 1956, 229 La.
Roberts v. Cooper 127 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
lzie Montgomery Cooper and Hattie Montgomery Ham, possessed full knowledge of the contents and effect of the agreement; (2) that the pronouncement in the opinion of the cited case as to the requirements essential to an interruption of prescription constituted dicta and were not relied upon as the basis upon which judgment of the court was pronounced; (3) , , held that the pooling and unitization agreement therein involved, which was identical with the agreement in the instant case, was effective
Gulf Oil Corporation v. Clement 118 So. 2d 361 La. 1960
Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Barousse 117 So. 2d 575 La. 1960
the mineral lease and the pooling agreement establishing the Harmon-A-Unit reflected that the parties intended that production from the unit would be considered production from all land subjected to the royalty rights, and (2) that the judge should have held that the mineral royalty rights had been divided by the unitization agreement, , ; Childs v. Washington, 229 La.
Brown v. Mayfield 92 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
276 , , and Elson v. Mathewes, 1953, , , the advantages resulting from a servitude are susceptible of division.
Childs v. Washington 87 So. 2d 111 La. 1956
r, in the exercise of his police power to conserve the State’s natural resources, has power to contract for the parties, contends that he, the Commissioner, simply did that which the parties could have done by contract among themselves, and unitized those minerals within the pooled lands; but that such act did not interrupt prescription as to the remainder of the tract — , .
Jumonville Pipe & MacHinery Co. v. Federal Land Bank 87 So. 2d 721 La. 1956
In an ably reasoned decision, Chief Justice Four-net stated: “It logically follows, therefore, that if the landowner and the mineral owner can by agreement extend the servitude as to a portion only of the acreage without by such act interrupting the tolling of prescription as to the servitude on the remainder of the tract, as held in Elson v. Mathewes [ , ], and if the mineral owner can divide the advantages of a servitude by assigning to a third person all of his interest in a designated portio
Jantz v. Long Bell Petroleum Co. 86 So. 2d 918 La. 1956
In support of this particular postulation, , , and Spears v. Nesbitt, 197 La.