Luckel v. Sessums, 4466.
Decision Date | 03 May 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 4466.,4466. |
Parties | LUCKEL v. SESSUMS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Wynne & Wynne, of Longview, for plaintiff in error.
Chauncey & Chauncey, Campbell, Lee, Taylor & Leak, and Ghent Sanderford, all of Longview, Syd Reagan, of Centerville, W. Edward Lee, of Longview, House, Wilson & House, of Dallas, Beeman Strong and A. D. Moore, both of Beaumont, H. R. Moore, of Houston, and Carl McLynn, of Beaumont, for defendants in error.
The defendants in error, L. A. Sessums and the Guiberson Oil Company, a corporation, brought the suit in trespass to try title to 45 acres of land out of the William Robinson survey in Gregg county. The defendants named were F. L. Luckel, J. G. McGrede, Gus Davis, Yount-Lee Oil Company, and a number of other persons. The defendants in error alleged that on May 22, 1931, L. A. Sessums was and still is the owner of an undivided 3/8 interest and that S. A. Guiberson, Jr., vendor of the Guiberson Oil Company, was the owner of an undivided 1/4 interest in the minerals under the land subject to an oil and gas lease executed by J. G. McGrede to B. A. Skipper, May 9, 1930.
The defendant F. L. Luckel answered by general denial, plea of not guilty, and by way of cross-action sought to recover as against L. A. Sessums and S. A. Guiberson, Jr., and the Guiberson Oil Company the title and possession of 6.72 acres of land. He specially pleaded:
L. A. Sessums and the Guiberson Oil Company answered the cross-action and pleaded not guilty.
L. A. Sessums offered in evidence a patent from the state of Texas to Wm. Robinson; a deed from J. R. Castleberry to Tom Thomas, and deeds respectively from Tom Thomas to Gus Davis; a deed from Gus Davis and wife to J. G. McGrede; a deed from Gus Davis and wife to J. D. Davis; oil and gas lease from J. G. McGrede to B. A. Skipper; mineral deed from J. G. McGrede to L. A. Sessums of 1/2 interest in the minerals; mineral deed from L. A. Sessums to S. A. Guiberson, Jr., of 1/8 interest in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pierce v. Baker
...did not err in overruling appellants' motions for an instructed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Luckel v. Sessums, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 579, 580; Brown v. Shaffer, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 1054, writ dismissed; Organ v. Maxwell, Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W. 255, writ refus......
-
Goode v. Davis
...source may be shown either by the pleadings of the parties, by agreements and stipulations or by proof upon the trial. Luckel v. Sessums, Tex.Civ. App., 71 S.W.2d 579, writ dismissed; Simmons Hardware Co. v. Davis, 87 Tex. 146, 27 S.W. 62; Curdy v. Stafford, 88 Tex. 120, 30 S.W. 551; Moran ......
-
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Marsden, 1732.
...S.W. 471; Boles v. Linthicum, 48 Tex. 220; Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n v. Bryan, 21 Tex.Civ.App. 563, 54 S.W. 377; Luckel v. Sessums, Tex.Civ. App., 71 S.W.2d 579; Mentz v. Haight, Tex.Civ.App., 97 S.W. 1076; Scherer v. Upton, 31 Tex. 617, 618; rule 20 for District and County The follo......
-
State v. Noser, 264
...stipulations or by proof upon trial. Goode v. Davis, 135 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Civ.App.--Ft. Worth 1939, wr. dism., judgm't correct); Luckel v. Sessums, 71 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1934, wr. dism.); Simmons Hardware Co. v. Davis, 87 Tex. 146, 27 S.W. 62. Appellees answered these points......