Home/Supreme Court/Producers Oil Co. v. Hanzen

Producers Oil Co. v. Hanzen

238 U.S. 325, 35 S. Ct. 755, 59 L. Ed. 1330, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1623
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJune 14, 1915
Docket165
StatusPublished
Cited by60 cases

This text of 238 U.S. 325 (Producers Oil Co. v. Hanzen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Producers Oil Co. v. Hanzen, 238 U.S. 325, 35 S. Ct. 755, 59 L. Ed. 1330, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1623 (1915).

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error — The Oil Company — instituted this action July 1, 1910, in the District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, for the purpose of establishing its right to possession of part of Lot No. 1, Section 4, Township 20, North, Range 16, West, suddenly become very valuable through discovery of gas and oil. The petition alleges that the United States in 1874 sold to one Pitts Lots 1 and 2, Section 4, forming a projection known as “Wilson’s Point,” surrounded on three sides by waters of James Bayou, a navigable stream; that he immediately entered and together with his successors remained in peaceful, complete possession until April 2, 1910, when defendants in error, without knowledge of Noel, then 'owner, wrongfully entered upon part of Lot No. 1, built a wire fence and placed a keeper thereon; that April 15, 1910, by notarial act duly recorded, the Oil Company purchased both lots from Noel and became subrogated to his rights.; and when it came to subject the whole property to actual possession a portion was found occupied as above indicated.

A writ of sequestration, issued contemporaneously with filing of petition, was subsequently dissolved upon motion, a proper bond having been given conditioned not to commit waste and to make faithful restitution of fruits if so required.

Answering, defendants in error denied they were occupying any part of Lot No. 1, Section 4, but said they were and had been since April 2,1910, in possession of 87.9 acres situated in Sections 3 and 4, Township 20, described by metes *330 and bounds, “which said property your respondents located under the laws of the United States relative to the location of mining lands and upon which they have made a discovery of oil and gas, and are, therefore, entitled to the full use and enjoyment and to a patent from the United States.” They also denied the Oil Company or any of “its ancestors in title ever had or claimed possession to any part of the property so located by your respondents; but, that, on the contrary, your respondents aver that the said land was never in the possession of any person until the location by them. ’ ’ Further answering they averred that ‘ ‘ Thomas H. Pitts purchased from the United States, among other' property, Lot Otfe of Section Four, Township Twenty North of Range Sixteen West, containing 12.84 acres and that he paid for the same with military land warrants, as containing that acreage; that the said Lot One of Section Four is figured and described on the surveys of the United States by certain metes and bounds, shown on the said plat, the eastern boundary of said lot, as well as the other boundaries thereof, being shown on the said map; that the East line of said lot which is the boundary between the land of respondents and that of plaintiff, did not and does not denote the banks of any body of water, but that, on the contrary, the said line was run through the hills as the line of boundary of the said lot; that the land of which your respondents are'in possession and which they located under their mineral filing aforesaid, is high, land, not subject to overflow at any time, and which never constituted any part of any lake or bayou and which was left out of the surveys of the United States and which remained the property of the Government until said loca- . tion had been made thereon by your respondent.”

There were introduced in evidence patents from the Government, field notes and attending documents, official plat, sundry conveyances, contour maps — one prepared by Williams for plaintiff company, another by Barnes for *331 defendants, — Barbour’s survey of Sections 9,10,15 and 16, and photographs showing landscape and vegetation. Witnesses were examined in behalf of both sides chiefly in explanation of lines, maps, water levels, character of land and growth thereon. A draft of the official plat (5/6 original size) is in the margin; on the following page is a copy of the combination map (much reduced) showing the Bristol, Williams, Barnes, and Barbour surveys especially referred ,to by the Louisiana Supreme Court. At the trial the following stipulation was made part of the record:

"It is admitted by both parties that J. S. Noel was in possession, as owner, from the' date of his purchase in 1880 [1884], to the sale to the plaintiffs of the property known as the Wilson’s Point place, his corporeal possession being limited on the East and North by the Bristol meander line, and said Noel never exercised any acts of corporeal possession, or was ever in occupancy of any land in Section Four, East of, or outside of the said meander line, or of any of the land in controversy. This is not intended to apply to any other land West of the land in controversy. That Noel’s possession was vested by act of purchase and continued by occupancy in the Plaintiffs.

"It is further admitted that defendants on the second day of April, 1910, took actual possession óf, and posted and filed notices of location under the placer mining laws of the United States, of the tract of land on which they are now in possession, and concerning which this suit is brought, which tract of land is described by metes and bounds in defendants’ answer.

“It is further admitted that when defendants took possession of said land, they located the western boundary line of their location, as the Bristol meander line, as properly located, and the defendant does not claim the ownership or possession of any land west of the true location of said Bristol meander line.

“It is admitted that since the institution of this suit

*332

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

Related

Vernon Fiehler v. T. Anthony Mecklenburg, Catherine Mecklenburg, State of Alaska, City & Borough of Juneau, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
538 P.3d 706 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2023)
Andersen v. Monforton
2005 MT 310 (Montana Supreme Court, 2005)
Board of Commissioners of the Lafourche Basin Levee District v. Rathborne Land Co.
868 So. 2d 928 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Riceland Petroleum Co. v. North American Land Co.
869 So. 2d 894 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
United States of America, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee v. Helen Pappas, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant
814 F.2d 1342 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Pueblo of Taos v. Andrus
475 F. Supp. 359 (District of Columbia, 1979)
Allison v. Shepherd
591 P.2d 735 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1979)
Heckman Ranches, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Lands
589 P.2d 540 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1979)
United States v. Ruby Company, a Utah Corporation
588 F.2d 697 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)
State Commissioners of Board of Public Lands v. Thiel
262 N.W.2d 522 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1978)
COM'RS OF BOARD OF PUBLIC LANDS v. Thiel
262 N.W.2d 522 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1978)
Snake River Ranch, a General Partnership v. United States
542 F.2d 555 (Tenth Circuit, 1976)
Willis W. Ritter v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior
513 F.2d 942 (Ninth Circuit, 1975)
United States v. 295.90 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., CTY. OF LEE, FLA.
368 F. Supp. 1301 (M.D. Florida, 1974)
United States v. 100 Acres Of Land, More Or Less, In Marin County, California
468 F.2d 1261 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. 100 Acres of Land
468 F.2d 1261 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)
Trustee of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida v. Walter F. Nowak and Jean F. Nowak
401 F.2d 708 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)
Lopez v. Smith
145 So. 2d 509 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Schultz v. Winther
101 N.W.2d 631 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1960)
United States v. 11,993.32 Acres of Land
116 F. Supp. 671 (D. North Dakota, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 U.S. 325, 35 S. Ct. 755, 59 L. Ed. 1330, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/producers-oil-co-v-hanzen-scotus-1915.