Martin v. Texas Co, 23424
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
| Writing for the Court | OVERTON, J. |
| Citation | 90 So. 922,150 La. 556 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. TEXAS CO |
| Docket Number | 23424 |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1921 |
MARTIN
v.
TEXAS CO
No. 23424
Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 30, 1921
Rehearing Denied February 27, 1922
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; T. F. Bell, Judge.
Suit by J. W. Martin against the Texas Company, to recover the value of oil delivered to defendant by the person in possession of a tract of land sold to plaintiff for taxes. Judgment for the plaintiff for part of relief demanded, and both parties appeal.
Reversed, and suit dismissed.
Scheen & Blanchard, of Shreveport, for plaintiff.
Hampden Story, of Shreveport, for defendant.
OVERTON, J. O'NIELL, J., concurs in the result.
OPINION
OVERTON, J.
The Alabama Oil Company was the owner of the southeast quarter of section 17, township 20 north, range 15 west, situated in the parish of Caddo. On May 26, [90 So. 923] 1916, this property was offered for sale by the sheriff and ex officio tax collector for the parish of Caddo for the unpaid taxes of 1915, and was adjudicated to the plaintiff. The sheriff, in obedience to law, executed at once, pursuant to the adjudication, a deed to plaintiff, as evidence of his title, subject to the [150 La. 557] right of the tax debtor to redeem the property within one year from the recordation of the deed in the conveyance records. On April 28, 1918, judgment was rendered in the district court for the parish of Caddo in favor of plaintiff, confirming the tax sale, and thereafter, under a writ of possession which issued from that judgment, plaintiff was placed in possession of the land.
After plaintiff had gained possession of the property, he caused it to be surveyed, and thereby discovered that there was an oil well on it. From the time of the recordation of the tax sale up to the time plaintiff was put in possession, the Alabama Oil Company, the tax debtor, was in possession of the property, and during that period pumped oil from the well and delivered it to defendant, a common carrier. As the oil was delivered, defendant bought it and paid for it, believing at the time that the Alabama Oil Company owned it.
The last purchase was made in September, 1917, and in October, 1918, plaintiff instituted this suit, alleging that he is the owner of the oil, and has the right to recover it or its value, which value he alleges to be $ 7,253.44. The plaintiff, no doubt realizing that the oil, long before the institution of this suit, had been converted into money by the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DON GEORGE v. Paramount Pictures, Civ. No. 3050.
...Lumber Co. v. Kerlin, 143 La. 111 F. Supp. 471 242, 78 So. 482; Bell Lumber Co. v. Stout, 134 La. 987, 64 So. 881; Martin v. Texas Co., 150 La. 556, 90 So. 922; Liles v. Barnhart, 152 La. 419, 93 So. 490; Liles v. Producers Oil Co., 155 La. 385, 386, 99 So. 339, and Carter-Allen Jewelry Co.......
-
Don George, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Civ. A. No. 3050.
...So. 47; Bryceland Lumber Co. v. Kerlin, 143 La. 342, 78 So. 482; Bell Lumber Co. v. Stout, 134 La. 987, 64 So. 881; Martin v. Texas Co., 150 La. 556, 90 So. 922; Liles v. Barnhart, 152 La. 419, 93 So. 490; Liles v. Producers Oil Co., 155 La. 385, 386, 99 So. 339, and Carter-Allen Jewelry Co......
-
Kramer v. Freeman, 36136.
...So. 47; Bryceland Lumber Co. v. Kerlin, 143 La. 242, 78 So. 482; Bell Lumber Co. v. Stout, 134 La. 987, 64 So. 881; Martin v. Texas Co., 150 La. 556, 90 So. 922; Liles v. Barnhart, 152 La. 419, 93 So. 490; Liles v. Producers Oil Co., 155 La. 385, 386, 99 So. 339, [3 So.2d 612] and Carter-Al......
-
Iberville Land Co. v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation, 10710.
...or quasi offense and is barred by the prescription of one year pleaded and sustained in the Court below. In Martin v. Texas Company, 150 La. 556, 90 So. 922, 923, the Court "Plaintiff's suit is for the value of the oil, not for the oil itself. If defendant is liable for its value, it is bec......