Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. State

104 S.W.2d 174
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 30, 1936
DocketNo. 8249.
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 104 S.W.2d 174 (Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. State) 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
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. State, 104 S.W.2d 174 (Tex. Ct. App. 1936).

Opinions

BLAIR, Justice.

The State of Texas sued in trespass to -try title- to recover 103 acres of land in Harris county, alleged to be a vacancy existing between the north line of the International & Great Northern survey and the south line of the lower Hooper [176]*176and Goodrich surveys. The corrected field notes of the International & Great Northern survey called for the south line of said Hooper and Goodrich surveys, but the State contended and the trial court held that it could not be extended to adjoin said surveys, because the calls for distance of the east and west lines of the International & Great Northern survey fell short of said south line 30S.8 varas, and the calls for distance definitely satisfied all acts constituting- the survey when considered in the light of the acts done by the surveyor and the parties to the grant in identifying and describing the land intended to be included in the International & Great Northern survey. Judgment was in favor of the State for the 103-acre vacancy, subject to certain patent or preferential purchase, or preferential mineral rights of some of the defendants to parts of the land. The primary question for determination is whether the 103-acre tract lies within or outside the bounds of the International & Great Northern survey; and the secondary questions relate to the patent or preferential purchase, or preferential mineral rights adjudicated.

The attached map shows the location of the 103-acre vacancy as found by the trial court, and shows the location of Willow creek and the adjacent and surrounding surveys as now accepted and established on the ground:

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

Related

Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1988
Strong v. Sunray DX Oil Company
448 S.W.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Frost v. Socony Mobil Oil Company
433 S.W.2d 387 (Texas Supreme Court, 1968)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1968
Buford v. State
322 S.W.2d 366 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Harwell v. Sloane
230 S.W.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
State v. Sneed
181 S.W.2d 983 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1944)
Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States
141 F.2d 562 (Fifth Circuit, 1944)
Sansing v. Bricka
159 S.W.2d 142 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Ellison v. Texas Liquor Control Board
154 S.W.2d 322 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Outlaw v. Gulf Oil Corp.
137 S.W.2d 787 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Spring v. Meco Production Co.
134 S.W.2d 828 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Short v. W. T. Carter & Brother
126 S.W.2d 953 (Texas Supreme Court, 1939)
Cities Service Oil Co. v. Dunlap
100 F.2d 294 (Fifth Circuit, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 S.W.2d 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humble-oil-refining-co-v-state-texapp-1936.