Henderson v. Chesley
Decision Date | 23 February 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 14167.) |
Citation | 292 S.W. 156 |
Parties | HENDERSON v. CHESLEY et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by Margaret E. Chesley and others against Upton Henderson and others. A judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (273 S. W. 299), and the defendant named applies for writ of error. Writ denied.
J. B. Dibrell, Jr., of Coleman, for plaintiff in error.
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case, holding the mineral estate subject to partition, is plainly correct. That court in its opinion, among other things, says:
"Since there has been no development or exploration for minerals of any kind, in, on, or under the land in question, we think that the court should assume for the purpose of partition that each acre of the land contains an equal amount of minerals, and partition by dividing the surface."
This is, no doubt, one correct view of the question, but we wish to suggest that, in partitioning minerals, it is not necessary that the holdings of each owner of mineral rights shall be represented by only one division or allotment. If the division into various allotments, with each owner being accorded more than one allotment in the several portions of the tract subject to partition, will be the most equitable way of dividing it, there is no rule of law inhibiting such method of partition.
Oil is a substance peculiar to itself, and behaves in different ways under different conditions; and, certainly, the court may take into account the habit of the substance which is to be partitioned, and apply the rules of law and equity thereto in a manner to attain its equitable partition.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. Smyth
...pp. 1092, 1102-1104. Relying upon Henderson v. Chesley, Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W. 299, 303, application for writ of error refused, 116 Tex. 355, 292 S.W. 156, petitioner takes the position that the rock asphalt estate in the lands of the ranch, outside of Surveys 120, 122, 133, 214 and 215, sh......
-
Yates v. State
...oil and gas estate may compel partition thereof. Henderson v. Chesley (Tex. Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 299 (writ of error refused), 116 Tex. 355, 292 S. W. 156. 6 Texas Law Review, No. 2, p. 129, and cases there But appellants insist in this connection that the Legislature materially changed arti......
-
Wight v. Ingram-Day Lumber Co.
... ... 891; Manley v. Boone, 9 Cir., 159 F. 633, ... 87 C.C.A. 197; Mitchell v. Cline, supra; Royston v ... Miller, C.C., 76 F. 50; Henderson v. Chesley, ... Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W. 299; Id., 116 Tex. 355, 292 S.W ... 156; 40 A.L.R. 1408; Morley v. Smith, 93 W.Va. 682, ... 118 S.E. 135; ... ...
-
Schnitt v. McKellar, 5--4208
...Bennett, 287 S.W.2d 607 (Ky.1956). The Texas Court of Appeals, in Henderson v. Chesley, 273 S.W. 299 (Tex.Civ.App.1925), aff'd 116 Tex. 355, 292 S.W. 156 (1927), held that the owner of an undivided one-half interest in mineral rights was entitled to partition against the owner of the fee an......