Home/Texas Supreme Court/State v. Sullivan

State v. Sullivan

92 S.W.2d 228, 127 Tex. 525, 1936 Tex. LEXIS 359
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 25, 1936
DocketNo. 7028.
StatusPublished
Cited by56 cases

This text of 92 S.W.2d 228 (State v. Sullivan) 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. Sullivan, 92 S.W.2d 228, 127 Tex. 525, 1936 Tex. LEXIS 359 (Tex. 1936).

Opinion

Mr. Judge SMEDLEY

delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section B.

This is a boundary case and the particular question for determination is whether a tract of 15.77 acres of land lies within the bounds of, or outside of, the Theodore Slade survey in Montgomery County.

On November 10, 1932, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the authority given him by Chapter 271,

Acts Regular Session of the Forty-second Legislature, leased the tract of land in controversy herein to J. E. Franks as unsold public school land for the purpose of prospecting for and producing oil, gas and other minerals. Franks had theretofore filed application and caused a survey to be made by a licensed land surveyor and the field notes had been approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. The lease was assigned by Franks to Humble Oil & Refining Company. That company a short time thereafter procured also an oil and gas lease covering the same tract from defendants in error E. B.

Sullivan and W. W. Hawkins, who asserted some sort of claim to the land, the nature or source of which is not disclosed by the record, as a part of the Theodore Slade survey. The Humble Company drilled a producing oil well near the center of the tract.

Sullivan and Hawkins obtained permission from the Legislature to sue the State to try the title to the tract of land in controversy, and this case originated in their suit against the *528 State, in which the Humble Oil & Refining Company was. also made defendant. Sullivan and Hawkins took a nonsuit and the case was tried on the State’s cross action seeking recovery of the title and possession of the land, subject to the mineral lease which it had issued, in which cross action Sullivan and Hawkins, Franks and Humble Oil & Refining Company were named defendants. Upon trial before the court without a jury judgment was rendered that the State take nothing by its suit for the title and possession of the land, and further that the mineral lease executed by the State to Franks be cancelled. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 87 S. W. (2d) 867. No findings of fact were filed by the trial judge and the Court of Civil Appeals, in its opinion made no findings of fact. The two surveyors who testified are practically in agreement as to all the physical facts, and the problem presented is to determine from the undisputed facts the true location of the boundary lines of the Theodore Slade survey, particularly of the eastern portion of its south boundary line.

The tract of land in controversy is the shaded area on the accompanying sketch, with its corners designated by the letters *529 C, D, R and S. The Ransom House survey of two-thirds of a league, the Joseph House survey, the C. B. Stewart survey, the S. H. Bryan survey, and the W. C. C. Lynch survey were surveyed by W. M. Rankin during the months of May and June, 1838. These several surveys are bounded on their west by the San Jacinto River. Evidently they were surveyed on the ground. Their field notes describe marked bearing trees at each of their corners and further fix the location of many of their lines by calls for creek crossings, giving the distance to the crossings and often the widths and courses of the creeks. The Lang league, an abandoned survey, was surveyed by John Carson after August 1, and prior to December 4, 1838. Its west line, which runs north and south, is indicated by a line in part broken in the northeast part of the area covered by the sketch.

*528

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

Related

Carroll Independent School District v. Northwest Independent School District, Josh Wright, Mark Schluter, Steve Sprowls, Judy Copp, Ann Davis-Simpson, Lillian Rauch, and Ryder Warren, in Their Official Capacities Only
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021
TH Investments Inc v. Kirby Inland Marine L.P. and Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007
TH Investments, Inc. v. Kirby Inland Marine, L.P.
218 S.W.3d 173 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Watts v. Alco Oil & Gas Corp.
540 S.W.2d 557 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1976)
United States v. Champion Papers, Inc.
361 F. Supp. 481 (S.D. Texas, 1973)
Atchley v. Superior Oil Company
482 S.W.2d 883 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
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)
Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. Frost
407 S.W.2d 248 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Hurr v. Hildebrand
388 S.W.2d 284 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Sweats v. Southern Pine Lumber Company
361 S.W.2d 214 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1962)
Strayhorn v. Jones
300 S.W.2d 623 (Texas Supreme Court, 1957)
Lynn v. Manning
297 S.W.2d 687 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Strayhorn v. Jones
289 S.W.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Teal v. Powell Lumber Co.
262 S.W.2d 223 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Barton v. Kuehne
234 S.W.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Harwell v. Sloane
230 S.W.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Tippett v. Woolley
230 S.W.2d 283 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1949)
Leone Plantation, Inc. v. Roach
187 S.W.2d 674 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Pritchard v. Burnside
140 Tex. 212 (Texas Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 S.W.2d 228, 127 Tex. 525, 1936 Tex. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sullivan-tex-1936.