In our case, of course, the plaintiff is the successor to the original lessor who upon transfer retained an overriding royalty interest. The authors also call attention to the cases of Warren v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 211 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.Civ.App. 1948), and Compton v. Fisher-McCall, 298 Mich. 648, 299 N.W. 750 (1941). These are not directly in point, but they lend some support to the conclusion that the plaintiff here has standing.

Franz v. Buder, 8 Cir., 11 F.2d 854; Metropolis Theatre Co. v. Barkhausen, 7 Cir., 170 F.2d 481. See also Compton v. Fisher-McCall, 298 Mich. 648, 299 N.W. 750; Kimbley v. Luckey, 72 Okla. 217, 179 P. 928. In Oxley v. Sweetland, 4 Cir., 94 F.2d 33, 37, the court said that "The thing that makes one an indispensable party to a suit is that some interest of his will be affected by it, not that questions of law or fact will be passed upon in which he is interested but by the decision of which he will not be bound."

PCA alleged that Merit Energy breached the implied covenant to act as a reasonably prudent operator of the Manistee 24 Unit and the Bahr Unit. See Compton v. Fisher-McCall, Inc., 298 Mich. 648, 653-54, 299 N.W. 750 (1941) (recognizing that an oil and gas lease includes an implied covenant to act as a reasonably prudent operator); Dietrich v. Sun Exploration and Production Co., 784 F.Supp. 383, 387-88 (E.D. Mich.1992) ("[u]nder Michigan law, an oil or gas producer has a duty to act as a reasonable and prudent oil producer in operating the field and in producing the oil or gas"); 5-8 Williams & Meyers, Oil and Gas Law § 806.3 (Lexis Nexis Matthew Bender 2014) (Michigan has adopted the prudent operator standard as "the general rule governing performance of implied lease covenants"). Cf. M.C.L. § 565.5 ("No covenant shall be implied in any conveyance of real estate, except oil and gas leases, whether such conveyance contain special covenants or not").