Sheffield v. Hogg, Motion No. 11692.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 11693.,Motion No. 11692.,No. 6130.,No. 6001.,6001.,6130. |
| Parties | SHEFFIELD, Tax Collector (STATE, Intervener) v. HOGG et al. FEDERAL ROYALTY CO. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Ike S. Handy, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.
Hart Johnson, of Fort Stockton, Brian Montague, of Del Rio, and James V. Allred, formerly Atty. Gen., and F. O. McKinsey, formerly Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The motions for rehearing and the several arguments filed in connection therewith have been carefully examined and considered and are overruled.
It has been suggested in a motion filed in connection with the motions for rehearing that the opinion be clarified by pointing out more particularly the nature of the royalty interest in section 32 involved in the "Federal Royalty Company Case," and which section is, for convenience, referred to in the opinion as an unpatented school land survey.
That section, after being classified as mineral, was sold by the state with reservation to the state of all of the minerals. It remained unpatented. The owner of the land under such sale leased the land for oil and gas, acting as agent of the state by the authority conferred in section 2 of chapter 81, Acts 2d Called Session of 36th Legislature, 1919, commonly known as the Relinquishment Act. Under the terms of that act, one-half of the royalty reserved in the lease belonged to the state and one-half to the owner of the soil, the agent-lessor. A part of the agent-lessor's royalty reserved in such lease of section 32 was conveyed to Federal Royalty Company, and that royalty so acquired and owned by said company is held by the opinion to be taxable like all the other royalties in both cases as an interest in land. The opinion does not undertake and was not intended to draw a distinction in connection with the taxation of royalties between patented and unpatented sold school land. The state's ownership of the minerals in public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Adams
... ... Dunn, 1937, 130 Tex. 285, 110 S.W.2d 53; Sheffield v. Hogg, 1935, 124 Tex. 290, 77 S.W.2d 1021, on rehearing, 124 Tex. 311, ... , so that Phillips finally paid the money into court on its own motion, on December 21, 1973. Once a stakeholder makes an unconditional offer to ... ...
-
Henley v. United States
... ... decided otherwise by the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Sheffield v. Hogg, 124 Tex. 290, 77 S.W. 2d 1021 (1934). There the court held that ... ...
-
Hickok v. Gulf Oil Corporation
... ... See: Sheffield v. Hogg, 1934, 124 Tex. 290, 77 S.W.2d 1021, 80 S.W.2d 741; State ex rel ... to and did interplead their claims, and on March 28, 1957, upon motion of the widow, the children, the executors and the trustees — all ... ...
-
Cage Bros. v. Whiteman
... ... 754; States Oil Corp. v. Ward, Tex.Com. App., 236 S.W. 446; Sheffield, Tax Collector, v. Hogg, 124 Tex. 290, 77 S.W.2d 1021, 80 S.W.2d 741; ... action of the court in submitting these issues to the jury; made no motion after verdict that the answer of the jury to the issue of wilful taking be ... ...