Chappell v. Rogan
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Gaines |
| Citation | Chappell v. Rogan, 62 S.W. 539, 94 Tex. 492 (Tex. 1901) |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1901 |
| Parties | CHAPPELL v. ROGAN, Commissioner. |
L. D. Brooks and Watts & Aldredge, for relator.
This is a motion to file a petition for a writ of mandamus, and we are of opinion the motion should be refused. The petition alleges that the relator has made application to the respondent, as commissioner of the general land office, to purchase, under the provisions of article 3498j of the Revised Statutes, a certain section of school land as oil lands, and sets forth specifically and in detail that in making his application he has pursued the requirements provided in that article for the purchase of school lands. It is further averred, in substance, that the section had previously been classified as grazing lands, and that in 1895 one J. E. Sparks had made application as an actual settler to purchase it, and, having made the first payment, and given his obligation for the balance of the purchase money, as required by law, he had been accepted as a purchaser; and also that since his purchase he had kept it good by paying all interest...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Cleveland v. Ward
...846, § 321; Crumley v. McKinney (Tex. Sup.) 9 S. W. 157; Cullem v. Latimer, 4 Tex. 329; Winder v. Williams, 23 Tex. 601; Chappell v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 492, 62 S. W. 539; Nevell v. Terrell, 99 Tex. 355, 87 S. W. 659, 89 S. W. 971; Old River R. Irr. Co. v. Stubbs, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 350, 133 S. W......
-
Dick v. Kazen
...4 Tex. 329; Watkins v. Kirchain, 10 Tex. 375; Winder v. Williams, 23 Tex. 601; Tabor v. Commissioner, 29 Tex. 508; Chappell v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 492, 62 S.W. 539. One to whom a subsequent lease is executed is a necessary party to a mandamus proceeding against the Commissioner of the General La......
-
City of Austin v. Cahill
...in their absence. Smith v. Power, 2 Tex. 57; Land Com'r v. Smith, 5 Tex. 471; Tabor v. Land Commissioner, 29 Tex. 508; Chappell v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 492, 62 S. W. 539; Tex. Mex. Ry. Co. v. Jarvis, 80 Tex. 456, 467, 15 S. W. 1089. These cases, though correctly decided on their facts, constitute......
-
Siddall v. Hudson
...(Sup.) 9 S. W. 157; Smith v. Power, 2 Tex. 57; Commissioner v. Smith, 5 Tex. 471; Tabor v. Commissioner, 29 Tex. 508; Chappell v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 492, 62 S. W. 539; Texas Mex. R. Co. v. Jarvis, 80 Tex. 456, 467, 15 S. W. We think the principle applied in those cases equally pertinent here, a......