Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Continental Oil Co. v. Landry, 41 So. 2d 73.

19 citing documents.

Ultramar Oil & Gas Ltd. v. Fournet 598 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
669 (1923); Vincent v. Bullock, supra; , (1949); and Whitehall Oil Co., writ den.
Horton v. Mobley 578 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
(1949); accord, Mineral Code Art. 80 and related comment.
Shell Oil Co. v. Pitman 476 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
669 (1923); Vincent v. Bullock, supra; , (1949); and Whitehall Oil Co., (La.App.
Cox v. Sanders 421 So. 2d 869 La. 1982
Calhoun v. Ardis, 174 La.
Lavergne v. Savoie 221 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
660 ], -114; , ; see also Frey v. Miller, La.App.
Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. O'BIER 201 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
The Group B defendants-appellants next contend that payment and acceptance of shut-in royalties on a gas well interrupts the running of prescription against existing mineral servitudes, citing as authority Continental Oil Co. v. Landry, et al., , ; LeBlanc, et al. v. Haynesville Mercantile Company, Inc., 230 La.
Whitehall Oil Company v. Heard 197 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Union Oil & Gas Corp. v. Broussard, cited above, at -114; , ; see also Frey v. Miller, La.App.
State, Sabine River Authority v. Salter 184 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
933 , ; Long-Bell Petroleum Co. v. Tritico, supra; , ."
Melancon v. Cheramie 138 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
A definition of, or a distinction between, a royalty and a mineral interest which is so well-settled in our jurisprudence, , ; Cormier v. Ferguson, La.
Phillips Petroleum Company v. Richard 127 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
35 ; , ; Union Oil & Gas Corporation of Louisiana v. Broussard, 237 La.
Hodges v. Long-Bell Petroleum Company 121 So. 2d 831 La. 1960
933 , ; Long-Bell Petroleum Co. v. Tritico, supra; , .
Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Barousse 117 So. 2d 575 La. 1960
35 ; , and cases there cited.
Union Oil & Gas Corp. of Louisiana v. Broussard 112 So. 2d 96 La. 1959
involved a similar attempt to distinguish, for purposes of prescription, a mineral royalty from, a mineral interest.
Cormier v. Ferguson 92 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
at page 75: "The owner of the mineral right has the right of ingress to, and egress from, the land, the right to produce the minerals, the right to participate in the bonuses and delay rentals paid under the terms of any lease.
Grayson v. Lyons, Prentiss & McCord 76 So. 2d 531 La. 1954
we find the following statement: “The owner of the mineral right has the right of ingress to, and egress from, the land, the right to produce the minerals, the right to ' participate in the bonuses and delay rentals paid under the terms of any lease.
Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Gary 70 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
If he sells royalty under an existing servitude, he is selling a part of the proceeds to issue from the use of that servitude and the royalty sale is dependent upon the life and use of the servitude.” Reference is made to a similar statement of the author in the ■ 1939 edition in the case of Continental Oil Co. v. Landry, 1949, , , wherein it is stated: “ * * * ' The owner of the mineral right has the right of ingress to, and egress from, the land, the right to produce the 'minerals', the right
Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Sanders 69 So. 2d 745 La. 1953
605 , ; , ; Union Sulphur Co. v. Lognion, 212 La.
Union Sulphur Co. v. Andrau 47 So. 2d 38 La. 1950
Wier v. Glassell 44 So. 2d 882 La. 1950
where, in contrasting mineral rights and royalty, it is stated: “The owner of the mineral right has the right of ingress to, and egress from, the land, the right to produce the minerals, the right to participate in the bonuses and delay rentals paid under the terms of any lease.