The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-11-10
Another Big Suit Filed in the United
States Court Yesterday.
EVERY BIG CORPORATION A DEFENDANT
The Entire Spindle Top Heights Property
and Every Gusher Sued For-For-
oerv Claimed in Present Titles.

The big game at Spindle Top Heights
Is what the plaintiffs in the second suit
In the new series which seem to have just
begun are after. Every big company on
Spindle Top is made defendant, and only
the largest and most influential corpora
lions and individuals are cited 20 appear
in defense Of their title 10 this suit As
an explanation Of this. Mr.. Presley K.
Ewing. counsel in the suit. said TO a Post
representative: "In the suit for Mrs An
ME Trench, filed in the United States cir
cult court at Beaumont today only few
corporations and individuals, twenty-eigha
in number. are named as defendants We
have named this number Of the leading and
most influential corporations and indlvid-
uals, claiming an interest in the property
with view to speeding the trial Of the
case. We have named only those upon
whom immediate service can be easily had
because we want a speedy trial. We do
not want the case hanging on term after
term from, any cause, and therefore named
only those which we thought would fur
nish no excuse for delay. owing to the i'm
Eructicablity or lupossibility Of having
service on. This suit viii be followed by
notions IL law against every person or
corporation claiming any interest In any
portion Of the Neatch survey, which in
cludes all Of Spindle Top Heights. with the
exception Of the northwest two labors. on
which two labors there PIe no gushers
THE proved oil held at Spindle Top all be
longs to the Nestch surN ey, and therefore
20 our clients, and we want to prove this
fact to the satisfaction OF the courts with
out AIRY unnecessary delGy
The suit above referred TO wnB aled In
the United States circuit court for the
eastern district Of Texas at Beaumont yes,
serday ana was styled Annie Trench and
hcr husband, Frederick Trench, vs.. The
Company ct al Petition in law.
The suit was against the following de.
PENDANTS, and they are named as defend
ants In the petition as follows;
The GLADYS city OH, Gas ana Manufnc-
turing company.
]. NJ. GuGey company.
Higgins oil and Fuel company
Lone Star and Crescent on company.
National Oil and Pipe Line company.
Keith Ward Oil company.
Haywood OIL company.
Texas Trust company.
Manhattan OIL company.
.-.ssourl. Kansas and Texas oil company.
Lucky Dime OIL company.
Beaumont Confeder6ted OH and Pipe Line
company.
McFadden, Weiss and Kyle Land COM
Spindle Top Oil company.
j. ~ Guffey Petroleum company.
A. r. Lucas w. 2. II, McFadden,
2 weisS & o,p,,., v v f Kyls,
H IS51Ie ais M D'ien' James w w Swayn..
J $ Hogg Harris MasterSon
@ II Snow and Anna L. Snow, husband
and wife.
The object Of this suit is to recover IN
undivided interest of TS320-10Q0Q0 of the
entire Veatch survey. including all of Spin
die Top Heights oil lands. and damages In
the sum of 100000. TIE action being on'
az law. the facts leading mp to the lnstitu
Iion of the suit are not detailed as fully
nor DO they appear as minutely ms they d,
In the silt fiod In the same court on Fri
daV hy George W Howell Of Covingtou
Ky. synopsis Of which was published eN
clueively In Yesterdays Post But lnRsmucI
as the petition Is hled by Mr.. Henderson
NJ. Someryile. formerly OF the suprem
court of Alabama, and referred TO In hi
talk In yesterdays Post by Mr.. j. II
Trembley, the st. Louis tMol attorney In
terested In the litigation, and by Messrs
Ewing & Ring Of This city, II is assume,
that Mr.. md Mrs. Trench are claiming
their title 10 these lands under the dec
from Colonel James Morgan TO William K
Baker, dated Octooer 10, 1865, and record
ed In the jefferson county records Decem
her 81. 1856 and that the claim Will b.
made by them the same a5 by Mr.. Howell
ir his suit IN equity thar the deed siguc,
James Morgan. dated November 10, lS4l
and not recorded until January 3 1867
some months after Colonel Morgan's death
Eurp0rting to convey the property In ques
fion back To Neatch, from whom Colone
Morgan had acquired the property, Is
forgery
But It is claimed that even II the deet
from Colonel Morgan conveying the prop
erty back to DR.. Neatch should be declared
genuine and not forgery the plaintiff
alleges It is that they, the defendants