Ferguson v. Steen
Decision Date | 10 March 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 467.) |
Parties | FERGUSON et ux. v. STEEN, Tax Assessor, et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Limestone County; J. R. Bell, Judge.
Suit by H. F. Ferguson and wife against R. W. Steen, as tax assessor of Limestone County and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
N. T. Stubbs, of Mexia, for appellants.
Reed & Cannon, of Groesbeck, and Robt. M. Lyles, of Austin, for appellees.
Suit by H. F. Ferguson and wife against R. W. Steen, as tax assessor, and H. F. Kirby, as county judge, J. M. Kennedy, J. R. Dulaney, Earl Leach, and Ed Andrews, as county commissioners, and W. A. Robbins, as tax collector, all being officers of Limestone county; the purpose of said suit being to restrain appellees from collecting or attempting to collect taxes on certain oil royalties of the value of $30,870, owned by appellants. The case was tried before the court without the aid of a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of appellees. At the request of appellants, the court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The facts of the case will be more fully stated in the course of this opinion.
Under appellants' first assignment, they contend that, by the execution of the leases in this case, all of the oil and gas under the lands leased became the property of the lessees and should have been assessed against the lessees, and no part of same is assessable against the lessors. The tract of land in question is 120 acres, composed of several small tracts leased to different parties. The leases in question are the usual "88 producer's special-Texas form," and each lease contains the following provisions:
"That the lessor, for and in consideration of $3,393 cash in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and of the covenants and agreements hereinafter contained on the part of lessee to be paid, kept, and performed, have granted, demised, leased, and let, and by these presents does grant, lease, and let unto the said lessee, for the sole and only purpose of mining and operating for oil and gas and of laying pipe lines and building tanks, power stations, and structures thereon to produce, save, and take care of said products, all that certain tract of land" (describing same).
Also:
Said lease also contains the usual covenants to commence drilling a well in a certain time, and, on failure to so do, the lessee will pay a certain rental, which shall operate to extend the time for commencing a well for twelve months, etc., and, if a dry hole is found, lessee will commence another well in twelve months, or extend the lease by payment of rentals, etc. The leases and dates covering the several small tracts constituting the 120 acres were as follows: One to Montague July 5, 1924; one to Godley Oil & Gas Company March 7, 1924; one to Megarity December 2, 1920; one to the Gulf Production Company December 3, 1921; and one to A. E. Humphreys October 25, 1924 — all said leases being similar to the one above set out. Appellants sold a one-half interest in the one-eighth royalty, which left them owning the surface of the 120 acres and a one-sixteenth royalty interest in the minerals in and under said 120 acres. On the trial of this case the following agreement was introduced in evidence by counsel for both sides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gulf Production Co. v. Continental Oil Co.
...supra; 31 Tex.Jur. p. 556, sec. 26, p. 601, sec. 49; Summers on Oil & Gas, Permanent Edition, volume 4, page 2, § 652; Ferguson v. Steen, Tex. Civ.App., 293 S.W. 318; Rosson v. Bennett, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W. 660; Gregg v. Caldwell-Guadalupe Pick-Up Stations, Tex.Com.App., 286 S.W. 1083; Hu......
-
Highland Park I. School Dist. v. Republic Ins. Co.
...listing (Articles 7206 and 7218) by eliminating same and thereby increase the valuation of its taxable assets. Ferguson v. Steen, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W. 318." For the two years, however (1926, 1927), defendant paid in and the plaintiff's assessor accepted the amount produced by the Company ......
-
Forbes v. Mid-Northern Oil Co.
...Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co. v. Stewart, 45 Ind.App. 554, 90 N.E. 384; Hill v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S.W. 246; Ferguson v. Steen (Tex. Civ. App.) 293 S.W. 318. It next urged that the imposition of the tax upon plaintiff's royalties in accordance with the provisions of chapter 140 im......
-
Republic Ins. Co. v. Highland Park I. School Dist., 2766.
...listing (articles 7206 and 7218) by eliminating same and thereby increase the valuation of its taxable assets. Ferguson v. Steen (Tex. Civ. App.) 293 S. W. 318. It follows the assessment in this case was not made in a lawful manner, was invalid, and the collection of a tax based thereon can......