Underwood v. Robison
| Decision Date | 28 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4233.) |
| Citation | 204 S.W. 314 |
| Parties | UNDERWOOD v. ROBISON, Land Office Com'r, et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Rowe & Kay, of Houston, and N. A. Rector, of Austin, for relator.
The motion is for leave to file a petition for the writ of mandamus. Leave is refused because, in our opinion, the petition is without merit, in that it presents a question of law which plainly is controlled by previous decisions of this court.
The question raised is this: Does the Act of 1913, c. 173, p. 409 et seq., relating to the prospecting of school lands and the development of minerals thereon, provide for ipso facto forfeitures of mineral rights acquired under said statute, because of failure to comply with its requirements, or does the extinguishment of such rights, for such causes, await the action of the Commissioner of the General Land Office in making, upon the duplicate copy of the permit retained in the General Land Office, an indorsement of such forfeiture?
We hold to the latter view. Said act of 1913 does, indeed, declare that failure of the owner of the permit to comply with certain requirements "shall work a revocation of said permit and the termination of the rights of the owner"; but that declaration is followed, immediately, by the provision:
"Such determination shall be indorsed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, upon a duplicate of the permit retained in the General Land Office."
The policy of our laws, as expressed in various earlier statutes relating to public lands, and as worked out and declared in several decisions of this court construing them, has been against ipso facto forfeitures and in harmony with the theory that affirmative action by the commissioner in expressly declaring a forfeiture, upon statutory grounds, and in duly making a statutory record thereof, must precede filings by other applicants. The legislative purpose seems to have been to require an official ascertainment and record of such forfeiture rather than to leave open, indefinitely, the issue of forfeiture vel non, thereby perhaps placing upon holders of subsequently accruing rights the burden of proof. Adams v. Terrell, Com'r, 101 Tex. 331, 107 S. W. 537; Erp v. Robison, Com'r, 106 Tex. 143, 155 S. W. 180, 157 S. W. 1160.
It is to be presumed that in the enactment of said mineral rights ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobra Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sadler
...which the Commissioner declared and evidenced a forfeiture have held that no other method may effect a forfeiture. Underwood v. Robison, 109 Tex. 228, 204 S.W. 314 (1918); Chambers v. Robison, 107 Tex. 315, 179 S.W. 123 (1915); Adams v. Terrell, 101 Tex. 331, 107 S.W. 537 (1908); Island Cit......
-
Dueitt v. Dueitt
...it must be presumed the legislative enactment established the public policy of the state with respect thereto. Underwood v. Robison, 109 Tex. 228, 229, 204 S.W. 314 (1918). Moreover, we must presume that a just and reasonable result was intended by the legislature. Ragsdale v. Progressive V......
-
Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Meredith
...which the Commissioner declared and evidenced a forfeiture have held that no other method may effect a forfeiture. Underwood v. Robison, 109 Tex. 228, 204 S.W. 314 (1918); Chambers v. Robison, 107 Tex. 315, 179 S.W. 123 (1915); Adams v. Terrell, 101 Tex. 331, 107 S.W. 537 (1908); Island Cit......
- Home Inv. Co. v. Strange