Taylor v. County School Trustees
Decision Date | 10 March 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 1166.) |
Citation | 229 S.W. 670 |
Parties | TAYLOR et al. v. COUNTY SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF EASTLAND COUNTY et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Suit by the County School Trustees of Eastland County and another against A. A. Hilliard and others in which F. Wilmot Taylor and others intervene. From an adverse judgment, F. Wilmot Taylor and others bring error. Affirmed.
Conner & McRae, of Eastland, and R. H. Field, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs in error.
Scott, Brelsford & Smith, W. H. Sewell, and Sayles & Sayles, all of Eastland, for defendants in error.
The Taylor Charcoal Company was a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Texas, January 10, 1919. October 6, 1890, G. H. Hard conveyed to the Taylor Charcoal Company 40 acres, which includes the 1 1/8 acres in controversy.
The said corporation executed the following deed (the underscored portions in writing and the balance in printed form).
The Taylor Charcoal Company is a dissolved corporation, at least is not now a going concern and has not been since 1896 or 1897, and the appellants are the owners of all the stock.
This suit was instituted in trespass to try title by the county school trustees and Warren Wagner, lessee under oil lease, against A. A. Hilliard and wife, unknown heirs of Hilliard, and the Taylor Charcoal Company. (The case as to the Hilliards was severed and prosecuted separately.)
The appellants John W. Taylor and Wilmot Taylor intervened, claiming to be the sole owners of all the stock of the Taylor Charcoal Company and thereby the owners of the fee to the 1 1/8 acres in controversy, including the oil, gas, and petroleum thereunder, alleging that the Taylor Charcoal Company dedicated the land for school purposes; that the recital in said deed of $5.50 consideration was a mere formality; that in fact no consideration was ever paid; that it was not the intention of the contracting parties that the minerals in, on, or under said lands should be conveyed.
The plaintiffs denied the affirmative allegations of interveners and pleaded stale demand. Tried to a jury, and after the evidence was all in the court instructed a verdict for plaintiffs and judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quinn v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co.
...production of oil and gas where it continues to conduct the school, although the grant was ‘for school purposes,’ Taylor v. School Trustees (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 670; or ‘for school purposes only,’ Phillips Gas & Oil Co. v. Lingenfelter, 262 Pa. 500, 105 A. 888, 5 A. L. R. 1495, and no......
-
Brightwell v. International-Great Northern R. Co.
...Dec. 268; Lindsay v. Freeman, 83 Tex. at page 263, 18 S. W. 727; Olcott v. Gabert, 86 Tex. 121, 23 S. W. 985; Taylor v. County School Trustees (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 670; Cartwright v. Trueblood, 90 Tex. 535, 39 S. W. 930; Calcasieu Lumber Company v. Harris, 77 Tex. 18, 13 S. W. 453; St......
-
Rahlek, Ltd. v. Wells
...in any wise belonging [to the property]"—in other words, all of the mineral estate. See Taylor v. Cty. Sch. Trustees of Eastland Cty. , 229 S.W. 670, 671 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1921, writ ref'd) (explaining that such language in the habendum clause "was a conveyance of the fee-simple title......
-
Gladewater County Line I. School. Dist. v. Hughes
...to hold unto the school trustees and assignees forever, was a conveyance of a fee-simple title, and simply that. Taylor v. County School Trustees (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 670; Wilson v. County School Trustees (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 669; Olcott v. Gabert, 86 Tex. 121, 23 S. W. 985; Rya......