State v. Quintana Petroleum Co.

134 S.W.2d 1016
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 3, 1940
DocketMotion No. 14283; No. 7634
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 134 S.W.2d 1016 (State v. Quintana Petroleum Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Quintana Petroleum Co., 134 S.W.2d 1016 (Tex. 1940).

Opinion

SMEDLEY, Commissioner.

In motion for rehearing filed in behalf of the State of Texas by the Attorney General it is argued that the judgment rendered herein, affirming the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, Quintana Petroleum Co. v. State, 127 S.W.2d 354, is inconsistent with what is said in the opinion filed herein on November 22, 1939, State v. Quintana Petroleum Co., Tex.Sup., 133 S.W.2d 112, as to the nature of the interests granted to the lessee and reserved by the lessor and the method of assessing and valuing such interests for taxation. This argument seems to grow out of a construction placed by the State’s Attorney upon the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and the assumption that affirmance by the Supreme Court of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals amounts to an approval of what is said in the opinion of that court.

To prevent misconception of the effect or meaning of the affirmance of the judgment rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals and without intimating that the construction placed on the opinion of that court in said motion for rehearing is either correct or incorrect, we deem it sufficient to say that the affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was not intended as an approval of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals as that opinion is construed in the said motion for rehearing, but the said judgment was affirmed for the reasons stated and on the conclusions expressed in the opinion filed herein on November 22, 1939. With this explanation, the said motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.

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

Related

Virgil Mathews v. Sun Oil Co.
425 S.W.2d 330 (Texas Supreme Court, 1968)
McKinnon v. Lane
285 S.W.2d 269 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)
Alfrey v. Ellington
285 S.W.2d 383 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)
State v. Whittenburg
265 S.W.2d 569 (Texas Supreme Court, 1954)
Whittenburg v. State
259 S.W.2d 270 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Lockhart v. Williams
192 S.W.2d 146 (Texas Supreme Court, 1946)
Harris v. O'Connor
185 S.W.2d 993 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1944)
Prince Bros. Drilling Co. v. Fuhrman Petroleum Corp.
150 S.W.2d 314 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 S.W.2d 1016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-quintana-petroleum-co-tex-1940.