## Facts

- A fee owner executed a 1921 oil and gas lease on a 160-acre tract for five years and as long as oil or gas was produced.
- Upon the owner’s death in 1925, his will devised the north 80 acres to one heir, who then conveyed undivided mineral interests in that 80 acres to siblings as part of a family settlement.
- Each 1925 mineral conveyance granted the interest “for a period of twenty (20) years and as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced from said premises.”
- The same grantor created a reversionary interest in favor of J.B. and Zella Beatty, to take effect if the determinable mineral interests terminated.
- Production on the north 80 acres occurred under the existing lease, but the last producing well on that tract ceased producing in 1945; the well was not abandoned and casing remained in place.
- The 20-year term in the mineral deeds expired in 1945; thereafter the interests continued only if production continued.
- A new well on the tract was drilled in 1947 and produced; the original well was rehabilitated in 1948 and again produced.
- The Beattys claimed the 1945 cessation, occurring after expiration of the 20-year term, automatically ended the determinable mineral estates and caused the minerals to revert to them; the mineral-interest holders contended the gap was a temporary cessation linked to efforts to restore production, affected by wartime shortages.

## Issues

1. Whether a temporary cessation of production after expiration of a 20-year mineral term, during efforts to rehabilitate the only producing well, terminates a determinable mineral estate granted “for twenty (20) years and as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced.”
2. In an equitable quiet-title action, whether the trial court’s finding that the cessation was temporary and did not terminate the estates was clearly against the weight of the evidence.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for the mineral-interest holders.
- It held that a temporary cessation of production to rehabilitate the only producing well, followed by resumption of production, does not terminate a determinable mineral estate limited to “twenty (20) years and as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced,” even when the interruption occurs after the primary term.
- Applying the equity standard of review, the court concluded the trial court’s judgment was not clearly against the weight of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A determinable mineral interest continuing “as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced” is not समाप्त by a temporary cessation of production occurring in good faith to restore production, when production is resumed within a reasonable time.
- In an equitable quiet-title action, the reviewing court will sustain the trial court’s judgment unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence.
- Evidence of nonabandonment and diligent efforts to restore production supports treating an interruption as temporary rather than as a termination event under the habendum clause.

## Conclusion

The court refused to impose automatic termination of determinable mineral interests based on a short-lived production gap after the primary term, and it upheld the trial court’s finding that the interruption was temporary and did not trigger the Beattys’ claimed reversion.


Beatty v. Baxter, 208 Okla. 686, 258 P.2d 626 (Okla. 1953)