Smith v. Panola County Royalty Owners Ass'n
Decision Date | 28 October 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 6406.,6406. |
Citation | 215 S.W.2d 199 |
Parties | SMITH v. PANOLA COUNTY ROYALTY OWNERS ASS'N et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Panola County; R. T. Brown, Judge.
Action by Panola County Royalty Owners Association and others against R. E. Smith for specific performance of a contract, for an accounting, and for damages for breach of contract. From a decree which overruled defendant's plea of privilege to be sued in county of his residence, defendant appeals.
Decree affirmed.
Neal Powers, Jr. and Long & Strong, all of Carthage, and Bryan, Suhr & Bering and E. H. Suhr, all of Houston, for appellant.
Sellers & Fanning, of Sulphur Springs, for appellees.
R. E. Smith, defendant below, appeals from a decree which overruled his plea of privilege to be sued in Harris County, the county of his residence. The litigants joined issue on the claim as urged by appellees that the Panola County District Court had venue of the cause of action by reason of Secs. 5 and 14 of Art. 1995, R.C.S. of Texas, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Art. 1995, subds. 5, 14.
Panola County Royalty Owners Association, a non-profit corporation, was organized for the general purpose of representing, protecting and promoting the interests of land and royalty owners in the Carthage Gas Field, situated in Panola County, Texas, in their contractual business and other dealings with those engaged in the business of exploring, produring and processing oil and associated products, and so served long prior to and at the time of the consummation of the alleged contract, the basis of the cause of action herein declared upon. The leasehold estates covering some 2710 acres out of the named contiguous surveys situated in above named gas field, which were owned by the defendant, had been pooled and unitized so as to form four units for the drilling and production of natural gas and associated products. Above association joined in by numerous individuals, the owners of royalty interests in lands under above leaseholds, are plaintiffs.
In February, 1946, a dispute existed between litigants with respect to the royalty rights and the basis of compensation and payment under above unitized leaseholds, which resulted in an offer made by defendant, evidenced by his letter dated April 13, 1946, in which he submitted three propositions. The third proposition which was accepted in writing by plaintiffs shortly thereafter, reads:
"Panola County Royalty Owners Association,
Carthage, Texas.
Gentlemen:
I offer to the royalty owners under my four units in the Carthage Field, Panola County, Texas:—
If the above proposition (which refers to propositions Nos. 1 and 2) is not acceptable to the royalty owners, then in lieu thereof, I will agree to enter into a contract with the royalty owners under my four units in the Carthage Field, identical in its terms and for the same period of time, as the contract which was entered into by the Chicago Corporation with the royalty owners under land in such field on which the Chicago Corporation owns leases, and on which it has drilled wells, and from which it is producing gas.
(Signed) R. E. Smith."
A copy of the letter which contained above proposition and the letter of acceptance as well as a printed copy of Chicago Corporation contract were attached to and made a part of the petition. The foregoing details represent a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Hall
...of Civil Appeals, which held that this case comes within the provisions of Section 14 of Article 1995. Smith v. Panola County Royalty Owners Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 215 S.W.2d 199. That court having overruled motions for rehearing and to certify questions to this court, relator here seeks a wr......
-
Texaco Inc. v. Gideon
...110 S.W.2d 53, and therefore subdivision 14 is regarded as applicable to suits involving royalty interests. Smith v. Panola County Royalty Ass'n et al., Tex.Civ.App., 215 S.W.2d 199. The ultimate or dominant purpose of the suit determines whether a suit falls under subdivision 14, and not h......