Frost-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Nabors Oil & Gas Co.

88 So. 723, 149 La. 100, 1920 La. LEXIS 1727
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 5, 1920
DocketNo. 22183
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 88 So. 723 (Frost-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Nabors Oil & Gas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frost-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Nabors Oil & Gas Co., 88 So. 723, 149 La. 100, 1920 La. LEXIS 1727 (La. 1920).

Opinions

O’NIELL, J.

Plaintiff, being the owner in possession of several tracts of' land in the parish of De Soto, brought seven jactitation suits against parties who were asserting title to whatever oil, gas or other minerals were in or under the lands. The complaint, in substance;'was that the claim of each defendant was, in its nature, the assertion of a real right upon the property and was therefore a slander of plaintiff’s title.

The Nabors Oil & Gas ‘Company was made defendant in each suit, because the corporation claimed title to the oil, gas and other minerals in all of the lands, and had granted a mining lease to each of the parties who were made codefendants in six of the suits, respectively.

The suits were numbered 8194, 8196, 8197, 8198, 8199, 8200 and 8203 on the docket of the district court; and for convenience, we will so designate the different suits.

The Standard Oil Company of Louisiana is codefendant in the suit No. 8194, for having obtained from the Nabors Oil & Gas Company a mining lease on the-N. E. Y of N. W. Y of Sec.'23, in T. 12 N., R. 12 W., containing 40 acres.

W. B-. McCormick, of Caddo parish, La., is codefendant in the suit No. 8196, for having obtained from the Nabors Oil fe Gas Company a mining lease on the N. W. Y of S. E. % of Sec. 7, in T. 12 N., R. 11 W., containing 39.72 acres.

M. R. Lare, of Wilkinsburg, Pa., and M. W. Everson and G. C. Lewis, of Pittsburg, Pa., are codefendants in the suit No. 8197, for having obtained from the Nabors Oil & Gas Company a mining lease on the S. W. % of S. E. Y of Sec. 23, in T. 12 N., R. 12 W., containing 40 acres.

The Gulf Refining Company, domiciled in New Orleans, and James N. Snyder, of Pitts-burg, Pa., are codefendants in the suit No.' S198, for having obtained from the. Nabors Oil & Gas Company a mining lease on the E. % of E. % of N. E. % and the S. % of N. W. Y of Sec. 5, in T. 12 N., R. 11 W., containing approximately 60 acres.

The Louisiana Oil Refining Corporation, domiciled in Shreveport, La., is codefendant in suit No. 8199, for. having obtained from the Nabors Oil & Gas Company a mining lease [103]*103on.tlae' N. Vz of N. W. Vi of See. 27, in T. 12 N., R. 12 W., containing 80 acres.

■The Nabors Oil & Gas Company alone is defendant in the suit No. 8200, asserting title to the oil, gas, and other minerals in the land described as the S. TV. % of Sec. 25, in. T. 12 N., R. 12 W., containing 160 acres.

• The Producers’ Oil Company, domiciled in Houston, Tex., is codefendant in the suit No. 8203, for having obtained from the Nabors Oil & Gas Company a mining lease on several tracts of land, containing in the aggregate 1,224.39 acres; being a tract of 284.96 acres in the southeast corner of Sec. 6, and the E. Vx of N. W. % of Sec. 7, in T. 12 N., R. 11 W., containing 79.43 acres; and the E. Vz of N. E. U, and TV. Vx of S. W. % of N. E. Vi of Sec. 9, containing 100 acres; the S. E. % of S. TV. y. of Sec.. 11, containing 40 acres, the E. Vz of N. E. 14. and W. Vx of N. W. Vi of Sec. 13, containing 160.acres, the S.. E. Vi of N. IV. 34 and N. E. Vi of S. W. % and S. TV. Í4 of N. E. V, of Sec. 14, containing 120 acres, the S. E. 3,4 of Sec. 15, containing 160 acres, the S. IV. 14, of N. TV. 34, and N. IV. 14 of S. W. 14. and N. IV. 14 of N. E. 14 of Sec. 23, containing 120 acres, and the S. E. 14 of Sec. 26, containing 160 acres, in T. 12 N., R. 12 IV.

In answer to each suit, the defendants asserted ownership of the oil, gas and other minerals in. plaintiff's land. To this, the plaintiff answered that the defendants and their authors in title had acquired from J. H. Nabors, J. M. Nabors, IV. A. Nabors, Eugene A. Nabots and the widow of E. R. Nabors (who once owned the property in fee simple), not ownership of the minerals, but only a real right or servitude upon the land, to bore and explore for oil, gas and other minerals, and to take such minerals as might be found and reduced to possession ; and plaintiff pleaded (as in the suit of Frost-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Heirs of Sailing [No. 22916] 91 South. —, 150 La. —,1), that the defendants’ real rights or servitudes- were lost or forfeited for nonuser, by the prescription of 10 years, under articles 789, 3529 and 3546 of the Civil Code.

The suits were consolidated and tried as one.

The. district court rendered a separate judgment in each case, rejecting the demand of the plaintiff, Erost-Johnson Lumber Company.

To avoid confusion, let it be understood that when we refer to the plaintiff in this opinion we mean the Frost-Johnson Lumber Company, plaintiff in the original jactitation suit; although the suits may be Regarded as having been, by the pleadings, converted into petitory actions, in which the original defendants became plaintiffs, asserting title to the minerals or mineral rights.

During the trial of the case, the plaintiff waived all claim to the solid, minerals, and has reiterated the waiver in the briefs filed in this court. The contest is therefore restricted to the fugitive minerals, oil and gas, if any there be, in the plaintiff’s lands.

Plaintiff acquired title to the lands involved in all of the suits by purchase from the De Soto Land & Lumber Company, on the 14th of February, 1910, and the deed was properly recorded on the 26th of February, 1910. There was no reservation in the instrument of minerals or mineral rights, nor mention of any previous reservation or disposition of the minerals or mineral rights.

The De Soto Land & Lumber Company acquired title to the lands in sections 6 and 7, in T. 12 N., R. 11 IV., and the lands in section 9 and the S. W. 14 of N. E. 14 of Sec. 14, in T. 12 N., R. 12 W. (all of which lands, together with other tracts, are involved in suit No. 8203), by purchase from IV. A. Nabors, on the 11th of May, 1906; and the deed was recorded on the 18th 'of May, 1906, in the conveyance records of De Soto parish.

[105]*105The deed last mentioned contained this stipulation, viz.:

“It is further stipulated that all mineral rights are expressly reserved, having heretofore been sold by the present vendor to the Louisiana Coal & Lumber Company, Limited, subject to the stipulations contained in such ■sale of mineral rights to said company.”

The De Soto Land & Lumber Company acquired the balance of the land (all that is involved in these suits except what was acquired from W. A. Nabors) by purchase from J. M. Nabors, on the 11th of May, 1906; and the deed was properly recorded on the 19th of that month. The instrument contained .precisely the same stipulation, with regard to the reservation of the mineral rights, that was made in the deed from W. A. Nabors to the De Soto Land & Lumber Company.

It was admitted, in the trial of the case, that AV. A. Nabors and J. M. Nabors were, respectively, the owners of the lands which they sold to the De Soto Land & Lumber .Company.

The defendants’ chain of title to the mineral rights is as follows:

J. M. Nabors, AV. A. Nabors, J. H. Nabors, Eugene A. Nabors and the widow -of E. R.

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

Related

Horton v. Mobley
578 So. 2d 977 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Reilly v. State
533 So. 2d 1341 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Anadarko Production Co. v. Caddo Parish Sch. Bd.
455 So. 2d 699 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1984)
Continental Group, Inc. v. Allison
379 So. 2d 1117 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)
Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. California Co.
132 So. 2d 845 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1961)
Bazemore v. Whittington
245 F.2d 943 (Fifth Circuit, 1957)
Wise v. Watkins
62 So. 2d 653 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1952)
United States v. Nebo Oil Co., Inc
190 F.2d 1003 (Fifth Circuit, 1951)
United States v. Nebo Oil Co.
90 F. Supp. 73 (W.D. Louisiana, 1950)
Spears v. Nesbitt
2 So. 2d 650 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1941)
Fite v. Miller
187 So. 650 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1939)
Vincent v. Bullock
187 So. 35 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1939)
Goldsmith v. McCoy
182 So. 519 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1938)
Ford v. Williams
179 So. 298 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1938)
Frost Lumber Industries, Inc. v. Federal Petroleum Co.
20 F. Supp. 612 (W.D. Louisiana, 1937)
Frost Lumber Industries, Inc. v. Union Power Co.
162 So. 37 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1935)
Gayoso Co. v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corporation
145 So. 677 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1933)
Myers v. Cooke
142 So. 790 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1932)
Palmer Corporation of Louisiana v. Moore
132 So. 229 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 So. 723, 149 La. 100, 1920 La. LEXIS 1727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frost-johnson-lumber-co-v-nabors-oil-gas-co-la-1920.