Tyler v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 7735.

Citation77 F.2d 802
Decision Date27 June 1935
Docket NumberNo. 7735.,7735.
PartiesTYLER et al. v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS Co. et al.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Mark McMahon, Warren Scarborough, and Gillis A. Johnson, all of Fort Worth, Tex., C. W. Truehart, of San Antonio. Tex., and William McCraw, Atty. Gen., and H. Grady Chandler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Carlton R. Winn and Charles D. Turner, both of Dallas, Tex., and P. G. McElwee, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.

Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

The Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, a Delaware corporation, brought this suit in equity against James V. Allred, Governor of Texas, J. H. Walker, Commissioner of the General Land Office of Texas, John H. Tyler, Eulia B. Tyler, W. D. Twitchell, W. H. Reed, and Lucille Fields Maloney, all citizens and residents of Texas.

In substance, the bill alleged: That on April 10, 1926, plaintiff became the owner of an oil and gas lease of certain property in Pecos county, Tex., described as survey No. 104 T. C. R. R. Co., through mesne conveyances from the state; that the value of the property exceeds $100,000 and a number of producing oil wells have been drilled on it; that on January 14, 1928, John H. Tyler filed in the General Land Office of the state a letter of inquiry to determine if there existed between surveys Nos. 101, 102, 103, and 104 T. C. R. R. Co. and survey No. 34½, Ira G. Yates, a vacant tract of unsurveyed, unappropriated public school land, to which the Commissioner answered there was no vacancy; that thereafter on July 16, 1928, Tyler filed suit in the district court of Pecos county against A. N. Lee, county surveyor, to require him to make a survey of said alleged vacant area; that on December 17, 1934, Lee impleaded plaintiff with numerous other parties; that plaintiff filed a petition with bond to remove the said cause to the District Court and said cause is now pending there by virtue of the removal; that on October 15, 1934, the Commissioner requested an opinion from the Attorney General of Texas as to whether in the area covered by the application of Tyler there was vacant, unappropriated public school land; that on the same day the Attorney General recommended that a survey be made on the ground of river surveys Nos. 65, 67, 68, 69, and 70 I. & G. N. Ry. Co. and No. 545 T. I. & M. Co. because the location thereof controlled the location of Runnells county school land survey No. 3, which in turn controlled the location of surveys Nos. 101, 102, 103, and 104 T. C. R. R. Co.; that said survey was made for the Commissioner by J. J. Goodfellow, the original corners of the surveys were found and located and by virtue thereof it was demonstrated that no vacancy existed as contended by Tyler: that this information was communicated to the Attorney General by Goodfellow by letter, dated January 9, 1935, but, notwithstanding the facts disclosed by the survey, the Attorney General advised the Commissioner, under date of February 5, 1935, that a vacancy existed and directed the Commissioner to issue a patent on the land to Tyler; that Tyler executed a power of attorney to Reed and conveyances to Eulia B. Tyler and Twitchell, all of which were recorded and purport to convey interests in the alleged vacant land but in truth and fact cover, in effect, the property owned by plaintiff; that while they conveyed no title, nevertheless they are asserted claims of ownership and cast clouds upon the title of plaintiff; that there is imminent danger that the Commissioner and Governor, under instructions of the Attorney General, will issue a patent upon the land claimed by Tyler, which land is already covered by a patent under which plaintiff claims; and that while said patent would be null and void, it would immediately and irreparably damage plaintiff, for which there would be no adequate and speedy remedy at law.

The bill prays for a decree removing the cloud from plaintiff's title, for a temporary injunction restraining the Commissioner and the Governor from issuing an award or patent to the land involved in the controversy, and restraining Tyler from procuring...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 13312.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 20, 1951
    ...has jurisdiction to prevent the casting of a cloud on the title to property, as well as to remove an existing cloud. Tyler v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 5 Cir., 77 F.2d 802, certiorari denied, Allred v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 296 U.S. 627, 663, 56 S.Ct. 149, 80 L.Ed. 445; Eppenauer v. Ohio ......
  • Keller v. Millice, Civ. A. No. H-92-3140.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • November 29, 1993
    ...issues concerning the local action doctrine without articulating a standard basis for decision. For instance, in Tyler v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 77 F.2d 802 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 296 U.S. 627, 56 S.Ct. 149, 80 L.Ed. 445 (1935), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an a......
  • BROADWATER-MISSOURI WATER USERS'ASS'N v. MONTANA P. CO., 10350.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 4, 1944
    ...v. Belle Fourche Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 8 Cir., 219 F. 72; Mitchell Irr. Dist. v. Sharp, 10 Cir., 121 F.2d 964; Tyler v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 5 Cir., 77 F.2d 802, certiorari denied Allred v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 296 U.S. 627, 56 S.Ct. 149, 80 L.Ed. 445; Id., 296 U.S. 663, 56 S.C......
  • Big Robin Farms v. California Spray-Chemical Corp., Civ. A. No. 2284.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • April 25, 1958
    ...Co., D.C.Tex., 83 F.Supp. 230; Hunter v. United States Department of Agriculture, etc., D.C.Tex., 69 F.Supp. 377; and Tyler v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 5 Cir., 77 F.2d 802. I conclude therefore that the question as to whether this suit for damage to peach trees is a local or transitory acti......
  • 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