Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co.
Decision Date | 30 June 1923 |
Docket Number | (No. 3569.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 254 S.W. 290 |
Parties | STEPHENS COUNTY et al. v. MID-KANSAS OIL & GAS CO. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by the Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Company against Stephens County and others to enjoin the assessment and collection of certain taxes. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which certifies a question to the Supreme Court. Question answered.
C. M. Cureton, Atty. Gen., E. F. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Veale, Caldwell, Bateman & Evans and Goggans, Bateman & Leaverton, all of Breckenridge, J. L. Goggans, of Dallas, Chas. L. Black, of Austin, and D. A. Eldridge, of Dallas, for appellants.
Penix, Miller, Perkins & Dean, of Mineral Wells, for appellee.
D. Edward Greer, of Houston, and R. E. Hardwicke, of Fort Worth, amici curiæ.
Appellee, Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Company, sued appellants, Stephens county and the tax collector, tax assessor, county judge, and county commissioners of Stephens county, to enjoin the assessment and collection of taxes on any separate right or interest of appellee as the assignee of the Texas & Pacific Coal Company, under the following instrument:
The instrument is duly signed and acknowledged by S. R. Hill and wife.
The suit was to also enjoin the assessment and collection of taxes on any rights or interests of appellee in and to 109 additional tracts of land, as the assign of the "second parties," under instruments in substantially the same form as the writing above copied.
The trial court overruled a general demurrer to appellee's petition and rendered judgment restraining Stephens county and its officers from collecting the taxes.
Appellants perfected an appeal to the Fort Worth Court of Civil Appeals, presenting one assignment of error, complaining of the overruling of their general demurrer, on the ground that the instruments conveyed such interests in the respective tracts of land therein described as were independently taxable under article 7503 and 7504 of the Revised Statutes.
The Honorable Court of Civil Appeals has certified to this court the single question whether appellee acquired, under the above-mentioned instruments, such interests or such estates in land as were subject to separate taxation. The certificate recites that numerous suits involving the question are pending and that its authoritative determination is of the utmost importance.
Looking to the manifest intent of the parties, we do not think it difficult to arrive at a correct answer to the question. The subject-matter of each contract was gas and oil in place. The principal consideration was royalties dependent on the marketing of the gas or oil. The land was leased for the purpose of prospecting for, producing, and marketing these minerals, and for no other purpose. It was solely to effectuate such purpose that the parties of the first part granted unto the parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, full and exclusive authority to enter upon the lands and to conduct all necessary drilling and marketing operations. The gas or oil, in paying quantities, became the property of the parties of the second part, their heirs or assigns, who were obligated to pay to the parties of the first part, their heirs or assigns, the market price of one-tenth the gas sold, and to deliver to the parties of the first part, their heirs or assigns, one-eighth the oil, unless they elected to pay the market price of such oil, instead of making delivery thereof. On demand, the parties of the first part, their heirs or assigns, were also entitled to sufficient gas for domestic purposes in specified dwellings without charge. The exploratory term was 18 months from date, subject to renewal for a reasonable time, on payment of stipulated sums per acre. The instruments were to continue in full force as long as gas or oil was produced in paying quantities.
Denial that these instruments passed separately taxable interests in lands is grounded first on the proposition that there is no such thing as ownership or conveyance of gas or oil in place, because, until the gas or oil is brought to the surface and reduced to possession, any owner of land adjacent to that containing the gas or oil may lawfully appropriate same.
The opinion in Bender v. Brooks, 103 Tex. 335, 127 S. W. 168, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 559, contains an expression that the owners of the land had "no specific title" to the oil therein until its removal from the earth, but the subsequent opinion in Right of Way Oil Co. v. Gladys City Oil, Gas & Mfg. Co., 106 Tex. 103, 157 S. W. 737, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 268, makes clear that it was not intended to thereby deny that oil in place was capable of ownership; for both opinions were written by Judge Brown, who cites the case of Bender v. Brooks in support of the conclusion in the latter opinion that the owner of the soil owns the oil while beneath the surface, as a part of the land, though his title becomes more definite upon the oil's extraction. The court had previously held that before oil is extracted it is a part of the land like such solid minerals as iron, coal and lead. Swayne v. Lone Acre Oil Co., 98 Tex. 597, 86 S. W. 740, 69 L. R. A. 986, 8 Ann. Cas. 1117.
The opinion of the Commission of Appeals in Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. State, 231 S. W. 1090, quotes with approval the statement in Gould on Waters that oil, like water, is not the subject of property until reduced to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Humphreys-Mexia Co. v. Gammon
...is elementary that the minerals in place may be severed from the remainder of the land by appropriate conveyances. Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 254 S. W. 290, by this court, but not yet [officially] reported; Texas Co. v. Daugherty, 107 Tex. 226, 235, 176 S. W. 717, L. R. A.......
-
Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corporation
...266 became effective. 15 See Texas Co. v. Daugherty, 107 Tex. 226, 176 S.W. 717, L.R.A.1917F, 989; Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 113 Tex. 160, 254 S.W. 290, 29 A.L.R. 566; Grayburg Oil Co. v. State (Tex.Civ.App.) 50 S.W.(2d) 355. 16 Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. State (Tex.Com.App......
-
Federal Land Bank of Wichita v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Kiowa, State of Kansas, 25
...See, e.g., Stokely v. State, 149 Miss. 435, 115 So. 563; Terry v. Humphreys, 27 N.M. 564, 203 P. 539; Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 113 Tex. 160, 254 S.W. 290, 29 A.L.R. 566. Other jurisdictions classify oil and gas leases as profits a prendre or incorporeal interests. See ge......
-
Coastal Oil & Gas v. Garza Energy Trust
...186 S.W.2d 961, 964 (1945); Brown v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 126 Tex. 296, 83 S.W.2d 935, 940 (1935); Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 113 Tex. 160, 254 S.W. 290, 292 (1923); see also Houston & Tex. Cent. Ry. Co. v. East, 98 Tex. 146, 81 S.W. 279, 280 (1904). 38. See also 1 ERNES......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...Co. v. Gammon, 113 Tex. 247, 255, 254 S.W. 296, 299 (1923); Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 113 Tex. 160, 168, 254 S.W. 290, 292 (1923); For examples of where the oil and gas are separately owned see e.g., Utilities Production Corp. v. Carter Oil Co., 72 F.2d 655 (10%gth%g Cir.......
-
CHAPTER 16 LEASE ISSUES FOR OPINION PURPOSES
...1019, 1021 (Utah 1959); Boatman v. Andre, 44 Wyo. 352, 12 P.2d 370 (1932); Stephens County. v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 113 Tex. 160, 254 S.W. 290 (1923). Colorado courts appear to have been silent on the direct issue of whether an oil and gas lease habendum clause creates a fee simple det......
-
CHAPTER 11 LEASE ISSUES FOR OPINION PURPOSES
...1019, 1021 (Utah 1959); Boatman v. Andre, 44 Wyo. 352, 12 P.2d 370 (1932); Stephens County, v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 113 Tex. 160, 254 S.W. 290 (1923). Colorado courts appear to have been silent on the direct issue of whether an oil and gas lease habendum clause creates a fee simple det......
-
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...Co. v. Gammon, 113 Tex. 247, 255, 254 S.W. 296, 299 (1923); Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 113 Tex. 160, 168, 254 S.W. 290, 292 (1923); For examples of where the oil and gas are separately owned see e.g., Utilities Production Corp. v. Carter Oil Co., 72 F.2d 655 (10th Cir. 193......