The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-12-09

I II. is az
inc sale. This was in t,it. ana !, se,,,,s
that they gave their mother part or f,r
money money ana ! was used in support oi ,he
luulll!, Aiter tue Cleveland iudAmrnt
some of the land was platted a. .nru'
| with lots blocks, streets and nllers ~" w.,
/ some los We're sold, hut no evidences ,vss
o ~ ,hi showing tnat the cotnulamaut knew
OF thls-that Is, had actual knowletre Sbc
resided IN California and has never bppn
/ In Texas. II also appears mat snc nst.'
| 49, sViscu anN ncts oi ownership over the
hnu Vr asserted any claim TO it until after
the oil discovery. un MAY ., iieli. MN.
| ever, she made q written demand on Zach
o. me defendants. the Higgins oil and
fuel company, the ]. NJ. Guifey petrolc,tm
company the Haywood oil COMPANY bp
Lone star and Crescent OH company ami
.ne Netional on aud Pipe Line company,
10 ne let into joint possession for an ne.
! counting MS 10 the oil taken hy them. wbinb
/ was refused. OF these defeudnnts on,v
Que, NE j. NJ Guffey Petroleum company.
/ or oil marketed All of the Defendants Who
nave answered aud are operating wells
SNOW their solvency and ability TO respond
e 10 my lndgmsnt that may he obtained
/ against them In the case. In fact, che
complainant does no. deny their present
soiVency, but makes sworn averment AS
Your orator further shows that thc pron.
erty, OF the said corporate Defendants Oh
| efatlng and that VIII operate wells On
salu land consists mainly, aud in some In.
stances solely, Of the interest owned by
! them IN said land and In said wells; that
| the land is Of but little yalur eXren, f".
tne OIL ana II said defendants are allowed
| TO exhaust said oil and pay The reyeunc
! 70 their stockholders many Of whom re-.
s i. ana nave their property beyond the
Unit, limits of the State Of Texas, as your orator
| Tears they Will do, there wluld lie uo
! available and adequate fund and property
out OF which your orator could he CON.
pehsated; mat said defendants operating
shlu Wells are antagoustic and hostile TO
your orator and therefore can nor he rr.
ned on to. render an impartial ANA jusi
account OF their. operations Also tha.
the oil is taken from the wells hv means
| exclusively within the control of the de.
iehdants, and that the complainant mas no
way or ascertainlng and proving by diSn-
terested testimony the amount OF oil taken
and marketed from time TO time
The hrst question presented has been FIRE.
guently decided by the suprd'lc court Of
Texas, where II is held that If the clm-
painants title is a legal one as in inc
present case, capable OF being established
az law, the doctrine OF laches aud STALE
cain does not apply. II Is simply a ques-
uon OF adverse, possession. San Iatririo
VS.. Mathis, ~ Texas, 242; Moss VS.. Kerry,
~ Texas, 633 Williams VS.. Congcr, -
Texas co.; House vs.. Brent, 80 Texas 30,
Rep. 723: Land Company vs. Hyland. -
w Rep, FOG, And, though sitting in
equity, this court may follow The rule of
decision In the state court on the question
OF Limitation and lsrhes Balkmn vs. Iron
company. l54 United States III; Railwar
vs. Railway. 81 United States 13T Again.
]
court OF law and establish her title and
then come TO this court for the desired
s sSe sbdd relief he ds saGre no EgasSa Why
stance. In cases tius Of concurrent jur,s-
dlction equity follows the law. and a court
Of equity will consider itself bound by the
Of law. Golden VS.. Kimmca, 30 United
states. POI Bank VS.. Dispatch, i49 United
states. AS Reagan VS.. Sabine. SO Federal,
40; IL Am. and Eng. Enc. Law 476.
The contention that the complainant was
bound by the judgment rendered In the
suit against Cleveland, when she was not
party to II. can not be sustained, The
fact that her co-tenauts might have re
covered for her in their names does not
alter the matter. Stoyall vs.. Carmichael,
y Texas, 1888 Walker vs.. Reed, - Texas.
1871; Bass vs.. Sewer IS Texas, 5dI; JCffers
VS.. Allen. 56 Texas, 1875; ! Black on Judg-
ments. BOA Nor can 1t be said that sue
son VS.. Jones, -, S. L. Rep, 444; - Enc,
ri, and Pr, G27.
Coming to the next point, the proof Of
fered on the hearing falls of showing that
the complainant received the estate Of An
drew A. Ncatch In California any mole
than she was entitled to as her part there
would have been the effect II she had APP
proprlsted more than her share But it
Is urged that s see estop3ped herself from
cepted MS n gift and used part Of tho
money realized by her children from ,he
sale of their interests. There is no ee-
ultul bi eNlppltl w H. htA udN uhl ~
tempted to sell her interest or the laud
itself. hut If they had, and she had used
the money, she would not have been estop
johnson VS.. Bryan, b2 Texas. 623; owens
i6557.' Ian" Non'p'"'' D . w. N'P' ''''
the rights Of life tenant as respects
petroleum oil obtained from the land. There
seems TO be no decision In Texas on the
point and but few by the Federal courts
in fact drprtiv mint "a
statute under which the complainant ac-
CURED her life estate appears under the
reads as follows: When any person hay
ing title to any estate Of inheritance, real,
personal or mixed. shall die interstate as
10 such estate and shall leave n surviving
husband or wife, the estate of Snch In
testnte shall descend and pass MS follows:
J. If the deceased have child or chill
dren or their descendants, the surviving
husband or wife shall take onc-third Of
the personal estate, and the balance Of
such personal estate shall go to the cniid
Or children of the deceased ana their
wife shall also he entitled 10 an estate for
life in one-thlrd of the land OF the intes ate.
with remainder 70 the child or children OF
the intcstate and their dc 'ccndants' Re
viscd Statutes Of Texas, Art. 1851
Il is noticeable that all property is elias;
sihed and its mode OF descent re+ulnte!
and second. land" The latter term is
therefore employed in its most comprc-
henslye sense and is nomen gencralissimum
life estate is given the survivor In one.
third of the land Of deceased husband
or wife. In this sense necessarily, because
all property of inheritance that is not land
Is CLASSIFIED as personal property, and II
drew a. Vcatch by virtue Of his fee simple
ownership of one-sixth OF this land did
not pass, one-thrd 10 his widow for life,
as land. II passed as personal property,
one third TO her absolutely. The rfe estate
is given, not In the surface OF the land,
hut in the land as land, and 4 Is Gle
mentary that the land itself In legal CON
temnlatlon extends from the sky to the
depths.
only the ground or soil. but everything
which is attached TO the GARTH whether
by the course Of nature, as trees heritage
aud water. OF by 3he hand Of man rs
houses and other buildings: and 1t has an
indefinite extent upwGrds ms well as down
wards so as TO include everything terres-
trial under or over It, Coke upon Little
ton. a. .,
BLACKSTONE SAYS: Land ,comprehenIs al
things of permanent and substantial m
tire, being word Of very extensive, sig,
niicancc;" also, III man grants all MS
| l. AL f,fa min Rf mi 81