Blankenship v. Hardin

Court of Appeals of Texas

Blankenship v. Hardin

104 S.W.2d 612, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 883

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 8, 1937

DocketNo. 3089.

StatusPublished

This text of 104 S.W.2d 612 (Blankenship v. Hardin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blankenship v. Hardin, 104 S.W.2d 612, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 883 (Tex. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

O’QUINN, Justice.

Appellees G. M. Hardin and his wife, Mattie Hardin, brought this suit in the district court of Angelina county, Tex., against appellants G. T. Blankenship, Farmers Royalty Holding Company, and Farmers Mutual Royalty Syndicate, Inc., to cancel a mineral deed executed by them on May 27, 1932, conveying to. G. T. Blankenship an undivided one-eighth interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals in a 50-acre tract of land out of the Thomas Quevadó survey in said county; and to cancel a mineral deed executed by them on said May 27, 1932, conveying to Farmers Royalty Holding Company an undivided three-eighths interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals in said '50 acres of land; to cancel deed executed by G. T. Blankenship on July 30, 1932, conveying to appellant Farmers Royalty Holding Company an undivided one-thirty second interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals in said 50 acres of land; and to cancel a mineral deed from G. T. Blankenship to appellant Farmers Mutual Royalty Syndicate, Inc., dated July 30, 1932, conveying an undivided three-thirty seconds interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals in said 50 acres of land.

The suit was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for appel-lees canceling each of the deeds complained of. The case is before us on appeal.

This is a companion case to cause No. 3088, styled G. T. Blankenship et al. v. T. A. Mott et ux., 104 S.W. (2d) 607, pending in this court. The allegations of plaintiffs herein are identical with the allegations of plaintiffs in said cause No. 3088, except as to dates, names of parties plaintiff, and the land in controversy. The facts very similar, in substance and effect the same, and the questions of law are the same. We have this day determined cause No. 3088 in favor of the appellees therein, and that determines the instant case. On that authority, and the authorities cited there, we affirm the judgment of the trial court herein.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

O’QUINN, Justice.

Appellees G. M. Hardin and his wife, Mattie Hardin, brought this suit in the district court of Angelina county, Tex., against appellants G. T. Blankenship, Farmers Royalty Holding Company, and Farmers Mutual Royalty Syndicate, Inc., to cancel a mineral deed executed by them on May 27, 1932, conveying to. G. T. Blankenship an undivided one-eighth interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals in a 50-acre tract of land out of the Thomas Quevadó survey in said county; and to cancel a mineral deed executed by them on said May 27, 1932, conveying to Farmers Royalty Holding Company an undivided three-eighths interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals in said '50 acres of land; to cancel deed executed by G. T. Blankenship on July 30, 1932, conveying to appellant Farmers Royalty Holding Company an undivided one-thirty second interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals in said 50 acres of land; and to cancel a mineral deed from G. T. Blankenship to appellant Farmers Mutual Royalty Syndicate, Inc., dated July 30, 1932, conveying an undivided three-thirty seconds interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals in said 50 acres of land.

The suit was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for appel-lees canceling each of the deeds complained of. The case is before us on appeal.

This is a companion case to cause No. 3088, styled G. T. Blankenship et al. v. T. A. Mott et ux., 104 S.W. (2d) 607, pending in this court. The allegations of plaintiffs herein are identical with the allegations of plaintiffs in said cause No. 3088, except as to dates, names of parties plaintiff, and the land in controversy. The facts very similar, in substance and effect the same, and the questions of law are the same. We have this day determined cause No. 3088 in favor of the appellees therein, and that determines the instant case. On that authority, and the authorities cited there, we affirm the judgment of the trial court herein.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.W.2d 612, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blankenship-v-hardin-texapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack