Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Pollard

Fifth Circuit

Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Pollard

173 F. 1021, 97 C.C.A. 668, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5134

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1909

DocketNo. 1,997

StatusPublished

This text of 173 F. 1021 (Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Pollard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Pollard, 173 F. 1021, 97 C.C.A. 668, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5134 (5th Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The decree in favor of Ellen Lee Mason is affirmed, for the reasons given in the master’s report; and the decree in favor of the Houston Oil Company against Uriah A. Pollard and others is affirmed, for the reasons given in the master’s report, to wit: “The special master finds the title to the land claimed by them to be in the Houston Oil Company of Texas, and recommends judgment accordingly, because it is not shown that they have evidenced or set up any claim whatever to the land until November 17, 1908 — ■. more than 60 years after the execution, of the deeds under which they hold— beyond ¡.he tiling of their deed» for record in the deed records of a county, whose name is not given” — and because the evidence shows that the Houston Oil Company deraigned litio through duly recorded deeds from the sovereign, to the present time, under which deeds it and its predecessor have constantly asserted title to and exercised ownership since 1882 of the land in question, by returning the same for taxes, paying some taxes, appropriating timber thereon, and by frequent actual possession through agents and tenants. The costs of this court to he divided.

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

PER CURIAM.

The decree in favor of Ellen Lee Mason is affirmed, for the reasons given in the master’s report; and the decree in favor of the Houston Oil Company against Uriah A. Pollard and others is affirmed, for the reasons given in the master’s report, to wit: “The special master finds the title to the land claimed by them to be in the Houston Oil Company of Texas, and recommends judgment accordingly, because it is not shown that they have evidenced or set up any claim whatever to the land until November 17, 1908 — ■. more than 60 years after the execution, of the deeds under which they hold— beyond ¡.he tiling of their deed» for record in the deed records of a county, whose name is not given” — and because the evidence shows that the Houston Oil Company deraigned litio through duly recorded deeds from the sovereign, to the present time, under which deeds it and its predecessor have constantly asserted title to and exercised ownership since 1882 of the land in question, by returning the same for taxes, paying some taxes, appropriating timber thereon, and by frequent actual possession through agents and tenants. The costs of this court to he divided.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 F. 1021, 97 C.C.A. 668, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-oil-co-of-texas-v-pollard-ca5-1909.