Texaco Inc. v. Gideon

Decision Date03 April 1963
Docket NumberNos. 11063 and 11064,s. 11063 and 11064
Citation366 S.W.2d 628
PartiesTEXACO INC., Appellant, v. W. S. GIDEON, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

William S. Clarke, Houston, Black & Stayton, Austin, for appellant.

W. S. Gideon, Mac Umstatted, Austin, for appellee.

ARCHER, Chief Justice.

These are venue cases which are briefed together pursuant to an agreement between the parties.

Appellee W. S. Gideon was plaintiff in the Trial Court; appellant Texaco Inc. was defendant. The suits were filed by appellee allegedly to obtain a 'declaration of the rights, status and legal relations of Plaintiff and Defendant with respect to' certain ratification and depository agreements covering oil and gas leases on the N/2 of Section 14, Block V, T. & P. RR Co. Survey, Fisher County, Texas, Cause No. 11,063, and the E/2 of Section 16, Block V, T. & P. RR Co. Survey, Fisher County, Texas, Cause No 11,064. These tracts will hereinafter be referred to as Section 14 and Section 16, respectively.

Appellant filed pleas of privilege alleging that 'Venue of the suit instituted by Plaintiff is, therefore, under Section 14 of Article 1995, Rev.Civ.Statutes, exclusively in Fisher County, Texas', or in the alternative that venue should be established in Harris County, Texas, where appellant's principal office is located. Subject to the pleas of privilege appellant also filed answers alleging that certain landowners of the above sections are indispensable parties, seeking to interplead such landowners, specially excepting to certain elements of appellee's alleged cause of action, and generally denying all of appellee's allegations.

Appellee filed controverting pleas claiming exceptional venue in Travis County under subdivisions 27 and 5 of Article 1995, and denying venue in Fisher County, Texas, under subdivision 14.

After a trial based upon the agreed statements of fact, the district court overruled appellant's pleas of privilege by orders signed and entered October 2, 1962, to which appellant in open court duly excepted and gave notice of appeal.

The points relied on by appellant are the error of the Court in overruling the pleas of privilege based upon subdivision 14 of Article 1995 and in refusing to transfer the cases to Fisher County, since the ultimate purpose of the suits is to establish title to a royalty interest in the entire N/2 of Section 14, and in the entire E/2 of Section 16, and that since the purpose of the suits is to determine the effect of the ratification agreements upon royalty interests, only, the fact that such agreements provide for payment of delay rentals in Travis County does not establish venue under subdivision 5 of Article 1995 in Travis County, in holding venue in Travis County under subdivision 27 of Article 1995 merely because appellant maintains a representative in Travis County, because such provision does not apply to domestic corporations, and is unconstitutional in that it unreasonable denies foreign corporations equal protection of the law, and that there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient that appellee's causes of action arose in Travis County, and the Court erred in holding venue under subdivision 27 of Article 1995.

Appellee takes the position that the suit was brought in Travis County under the Declaratory Judgment Act, to construe his rights, status and other legal relations with respect to a contract executed in Travis County and mailed to appellant, and that there is no question of title involved.

Article 2524-1, Sections 1, 2 and 3, R.C.S., provide for the scope of Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Prior to September 22, 1960 appellant, through its predecessor TXL Oil Corporation, held oil and gas leases on the N/2 of Section 14 and Appellee was the owner of 1/10 (or 16-acre) interest in the minerals in and under the NW/4 of Section 14.

Appellant owns an oil and gas lease on the E/2 of Section 14, and Appellee owns an undivided 1/10 (or 16-acre) mineral interest in the NE/4 of Section 16.

The mineral lease under which appellant claims on the N/2 of Section 14, Block V, T & P RR. Co. survey in Fisher County, Texas is dated August 15, 1960 and executed by J. C. Stribling, et al.

This lease was subsequently ratified by a number of persons and by appellee on September 22, 1960.

The ratification agreement reads as follows:

'THE STATE OF TEXAS

'COUNTY OF TRAVIS}

'WHEREAS, J. C. STRIBLING, JR. AND WIFE, STELLA STRIBLING; JOHN STRIBLING, JR. AND WIFE, DAULMA STRIBLING; HUDSON FOWLER AND WIFE, LILLIAN FOWLER; RUTH

FOWLER, A FEME SOLE; CLAY FOWLER AND WIFE, MARJORIE FOWLER; TOMMIE JEAN FOWLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATES OF LINDA SUE FOWLER, TOMMIE RUTH FOWLER, AND FRED FOWLER, MINORS, executed oil and gas leases to THE TXL OIL CORPORATION covering the:

'N/2 of Section 14, Block V, T&PRR Co. Survey, Fisher County, Texas reference being here made to said original leases for all purposes, said leases being dated August 15, 1960, and being for a primary term of 5 years, providing for annual rental of $1.00 per acre, and containing the customary clauses for 1/8th royalty; and

'WHEREAS, W. S. Gideon is the owner of an undivided 1/10 interest in the minerals under the NW/4 of Section 14, Block V, T&P RR Co. Survey, and as such owner he is willing to ratify said leases, and it is his desire to ratify the same;

'NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, W. S. Gideon, in consideration of the sum of $10.00 an acre paid to me by said lessee for said leases in the above described land, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby:

'(1) acknowledge receipt of my portion of the bonus monies paid for said leases;

'(2) ratify and confirm said leases as being fully binding upon my interest in the mineral estate in the above described land, the same as if I had personally joined in the execution of said leases and acknowledged and delivered the same and I do hereby lease, demise and let unto said lessee, its heirs and assigns, all my right, title and interest, in and to the said mineral estate in the above described land subject to and in accordance with the provisions of said leases and this agreement;

'(3) stipulate and agree that the undersigned's portion of such delay rentals as lessee, its heirs and assigns may elect to pay under the terms of the foregoing leases, may be deposited to the credit of the undersigned in the following bank:

'The Austin National Bank, Austin, Texas.

'IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand this 22nd day of September, 1960.

'/s/ W. S. Gideon'

The appellant has a mineral lease, on the E/2 of Section 16, Block V, T&P RR Co. survey, Fisher County, Texas executed by J. C. Stribling, et al., dated November 14, 1961, and subsequently ratified by several individuals, and by appellee on December 18, 1961, such being in words and terms similar to the agreement as set out herein and we do not copy this agreement again.

Three wells have been drilled on the N/2 of Section 14, two producing wells having been drilled on the NE/4 and a dry hole having been drilled on the NW/4 and production has been had from one or both of the said producing wells since on or about November 23, 1961, and being had now.

Neither Appellant nor its predecessor has paid Appellee any royalties.

Two producing wells have been drilled on the NE/4 of Section 16 and one on the SE/4 of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • South Padre Development Co., Inc. v. Texas Commerce Bank Nat. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 17, 1976
    ...S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1972, no writ); Morgan v. Box, 449 S.W.2d 499 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1969, no writ); Texaco Inc. v. Gideon, 366 S.W.2d 628 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1963, no writ); Wagner v. Pulliam, The Development Co. names numerous defendants under its fourth amended ......
  • First Nat. Bank of Yorktown v. Pickett, 1156
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 1977
    ...a suit falls under Subdivision 14. Edgar v. Bartek, supra; Morgan v. Box, 449 S.W.2d 499 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1969, no writ); Texaco, Inc. v. Gideon, 366 S.W.2d 628 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1963, no The pivotal question here is whether or not a suit to recover for breach of the warranty contain......
  • Anglo Exploration Corp. v. Grayshon
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 24, 1979
    ...is an interest in land, and damages to such estate are damages to land. Tennant v. Dunn, 130 Tex. 285, 110 S.W.2d 53 (1937); Texaco Inc. v. Gideon, 366 S.W.2d 628 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1963, no writ); Fagadau v. Sand Springs Home, 337 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1960, writ dism'd); Mar......
  • Thomas v. Ralph E. Fair, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 1977
    ...case falls under subdivision 14. Edgar v. Bartek, supra; Morgan v. Box, 449 S.W.2d 499 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1969, no writ); Texaco, Inc. v. Gideon, 366 S.W.2d 628 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1963, no The actual questions raised by Plaintiff landowners' first point of error are succinctly set out i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT