Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Rogge v. Gulf Oil Corporation

Rogge v. Gulf Oil Corporation

351 S.W.2d 565, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2725
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 26, 1961
Docket3907
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 351 S.W.2d 565 (Rogge v. Gulf Oil Corporation) 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
Rogge v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 565, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2725 (Tex. Ct. App. 1961).

Opinion

WILSON, Justice.

This vacancy suit is basically a boundary controversy brought as a trespass to try title action by Rogge, lessee of the State. The State as lessor intervened. They will be referred to herein as plaintiffs. Their suit is against Gulf and numerous others, who will be collectively referred to as defendants, to recover title to and possession of Rogge’s interest under an oil and gas lease covering lands in Orange County. Judgment was rendered on a jury verdict for plaintiffs as to 28 acres involved, and against them as to other lands sued for in so far as parties before us are affected. Gulf and other non-defaulting and non-disclaiming defendants appeal from the judgment as to the 28 acres; plaintiffs appeal from the judgment denying them recovery as to the balance of the land in controversy.

We will first dispose of the appeal by Gulf and other defendants. They present points attacking the jury findings on which the judgment relating to the 28 acres was rendered, complaining of submission of issues relating thereto, and otherwise challenging that portion of the judgment.

These defendants filed and presented to the trial court a motion for judgment asserting unequivocally that upon the verdict they were entitled to judgment for all land sued for except the 28 acres, which “should be awarded to John P. Rogge, plaintiff, and the State of Texas, intervenor;” and praying that judgment be rendered awarding the 28 acres to the latter. Plaintiffs likewise moved for judgment as to the 28 acres. The judgment recited the jury findings, the presentation and consideration of the motions, and awarded the 28 acres to plaintiffs. Thereafter, making no motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to disregard findings, defendants presented a motion for new trial which they refer to in their brief as- a motion that these answers “be set aside as not being supported by the evidence”, and praying that the judgment as to the 28 acres be also set aside. The motion was overruled.

Having induced the court to render judgment on the verdict by affirmatively praying that the 28 acres be awarded to plaintiffs, defendants may not now complain of the action which they invited, requested and urged. Smith v. Chipley, 118 Tex. 415, 16 S.W.2d 269, 276; Texas Portland Cement & Lime Co. v. Lee, 98 Tex. 236, 82 S.W. 1025; American Surety Co. v. Whitehead, Tex.Com.App., 45 S.W.2d 958, 961; Whitehead v. Reiger, Tex.Com.App., 6 S.W.2d 745, 747; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Risien, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W. 977, 980; Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Straughan, Tex.Civ.App., 254 S.W.2d 882, 885; Barton v. Wood, Tex.Civ.App., 162 S.W.2d 147, 148, writ ref. w. m.; Jones Fine Bread Co. v. Cook, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 889, 890; Braden v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 108 SW.2d 314, 317, syl. 3; National Bank v. Kilgore, 17 Tex.Civ.App. 462, 43 S.W. 565, 566; 4 Tex.Jur.2d Secs. 765, 773.

The facts relating to plaintiffs’ appeal are extremely complex. They may be more clearly understood by a reading of Caswell v. Faulk, Tex.Civ.App., 97 S.W.2d 341, writ .ref., and study of the plat therein, relating to the Beaumont and surrounding surveys; and State v. Gulf Oil Corp., Tex. Civ.App., 264 S.W.2d 743, writ ref. n. r. e., relating to the Allen survey.

*567

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

Related

Casu Ex Rel. Casu v. Marathon Refining Co.
896 S.W.2d 388 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
State v. Enterprise Bank-Houston
873 S.W.2d 117 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
De Anda v. De Anda
662 S.W.2d 107 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. Bandy Laboratories, Inc.
608 S.W.2d 308 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
R. B. Butler, Inc. v. Henry
589 S.W.2d 190 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Strong v. Sunray DX Oil Company
448 S.W.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Strickland Transportation Co. v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
387 S.W.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1964)
State v. Davis
368 S.W.2d 658 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 S.W.2d 565, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogge-v-gulf-oil-corporation-texapp-1961.