DORE, Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause or right of action, filed by the defendants.
The defendants filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that we did not have jurisdiction of the subject-matter, in that the value of the property in question, at the time of the institution of this suit, was in excess of $2,000, and in support of this motion, defendants attached and annexed thereto certified copies: First, of a sale from Dr. Boagni, one of the defendants, to Mr. H. J. Ber-geron, the other defendant, wherein the said Dr. Boagni sold unto the said Berge-ron the property in question for the sum of $1,400, reserving unto the vendor a certain portion of the mineral rights; second, of a mineral lease executed by the said Messrs.
Dr. Boagni and Bergeron to the Rex Drilling Company, the consideration of which is stated to be the sum of $2,550, for a five years’ rental therefor, payable in advance. The affidavit of the plaintiff is to the effect that the property is worth less than $2,000. On the Motion to Dismiss. The allegations of the plaintiff’s petition show that the property was sold to Dr. Boagni, defendant herein, for the sum of $200.
Considering those allegations, together with the affidavit of the plaintiff that the property has a less value than of $2,000 we deem it sufficient to establish our jurisdiction. However, in passing, we may say that the affidavit of the defendants to the effect that-Dr. Boag-ni sold the property to Mr. Bergeron, the other defendant, for the sum of $1,400, however reserving a certain portion of the mineral rights, also shows that the property is of less value than $2,000.
The fact that the property was almost immediately leased for a period of five years for an advanced consideration of $2,550, 899 or you may say a payment in advance of $510 per yeár, for the mineral development, does not show in itself our lack of jurisdiction. As we understand the law and jurisprudence of our state to be, mineral rights, such as oil and gas, are regarded as fugitive rights which may or may not exist in the land, and that they have an uncertain existence and value.
We do not therefore consider this lease in the fixation of the value of the property and in the determination of our jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore denied.
Loading…