## Facts

- Newman Roberts, Rosa Lee Hartman, and Olen Stafford (the only heirs of Bob Roberts) owned an undivided one-half interest in approximately 1.5 acres: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12, Block W, Hawley Addition to the town of Altair, Colorado County, Texas.
- The other undivided one-half interest in the same six lots was owned by James Craven (and wife, Lovie Craven) and Estella Todd (an heir of Matilda Joshua).
- On September 29, 1947, Craven and wife executed an oil, gas, and mineral lease to The Superior Oil Company purporting to cover the six lots.
- On October 6, 1947, Todd executed a similar lease to Superior covering the same lots.
- Each lease contained a clause by which the lessor “pool[ed] and unitize[d]” the leased land and the lessor’s rights under an existing “Unitization and Unit Operating Agreement in the Altair Field, Colorado County, Texas,” dated April 10, 1947, and stated that the unit agreement’s terms would supersede the lease.
- The Altair Field unit agreement covered several hundred acres; production was obtained from the unit.
- No wells were drilled on the six Altair town lots, and no wells were drilled within 1,200 feet of them.
- Superior offered to lease the Roberts heirs’ undivided one-half interest, but they refused, never executed any lease or ratification, and received no payments from minerals produced from the unit area.
- The Roberts heirs sued Superior seeking recovery based on the inclusion of the six lots within the unit and on the leases executed by their cotenants.
- The trial court rendered judgment for the Roberts heirs, and the court of civil appeals affirmed; Superior sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether leases executed by some cotenants that place their interests under an existing fieldwide unitization agreement give nonconsenting, unleased cotenants a right to share in unit production.
2. Whether an unleased cotenant who refused to join or ratify unitization may nonetheless recover from the lessee as if unit production were attributable to the cotenant’s undivided interest in the tract included within the unit.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgments of the courts below and rendered judgment that the Roberts heirs take nothing against Superior.
- The Court held that the unitization provisions in the Craven and Todd leases affected only the lessors’ interests and did not bind or benefit the nonconsenting, unleased cotenants.
- The Court approved and followed Boggess v. Milam (W. Va. 1945) as controlling on the question presented.

## Legal Principles

- Pooling and unitization arise from agreement; the right to share in unit production depends on consent to the unit arrangement.
- A cotenant may lease and may agree to unitize only the cotenant’s own undivided interest; such action does not change the property rights of a nonjoining cotenant.
- A nonconsenting cotenant who refuses to lease or ratify unitization cannot claim the benefits of unit participation while remaining outside the agreement.
- Inclusion of a tract within unit boundaries, without the cotenant’s consent, does not convert production elsewhere in the unit into production from the nonconsenting cotenant’s interest for purposes of payment by the lessee.

## Conclusion

Because the Roberts heirs never leased, joined, or ratified the Altair Field unitization agreement, the leases executed by their cotenants did not confer on them any right to unit proceeds, and Superior owed them nothing based solely on their status as unleased cotenants in a tract located within the unitized area.


Superior Oil Co. v. Roberts, 398 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. 1966)