Classen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita

Schroeder, C.J.,

concurring: I would adhere strictly to the decision in Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609, 498 P.2d 98 (1972), which was recently affirmed in Friesen v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 227 Kan. 522, 608 P.2d 915 (1980).

Under the law in these decisions the expert testimony of Mr. Van Slyke is irrelevant.

However, on the facts in this case, the Classens leased Tract I (the quarter section which they owned), and later joined Tract I in a unitization agreement with other land. When a well productive of gas in paying quantities was drilled on the other land within the unitized gas leasehold estates, in accordance with stipulated facts 9 and 10, the Classens voluntarily acknowledged the de facto existence of a 14 royalty interest in the Federal Land Bank from March 30, 1959, until suit to quiet title was filed in March 1978.

Under these circumstances the Classens should be estopped to deny the interest of the Federal Land Bank in the production of gas from the unitized gas leasehold estates, which included Tract I owned by the Classens.

In my opinion, it is improper to modify established law when hard facts are encountered. Compromising and labeling this case as “doing equity” makes bad law. Henceforth, attorneys will attempt to apply and expand the doctrine to show drainage from a tract of land covered by a term mineral reservation (described in Syllabus ¶ 2) where the production of oil or gas is found beyond the confines of the land covered by the mineral reservation during the primary term of the reservation. The stability of our established body of oil and gas law is shaken by the opinion and the comments of the court in this case.