The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-12-08
|, Federal Judge Bryant in the
H Annie {. Snow Case.
.s Farmer DECISION IS AFFIRMED
o,i,,s Were Raised by the Case
Ms oeoision Was Made in Equity
on Some Of Them.

SNOW VS., the Higgins on and
PAF ,mrapy Of nj, and involving one
.,,,rtb life interest in the Neatcl
az which is situated all of the oil
I. ,,eept I'VE or six, the action beiug
y Testament for receiver.
A ascslon is Of importance because II
poneer nature. some of the points
.,s,sd having never been decided 10y It
~ states court Following is a Synop-
4 !, The decision;
4 ,sr setting forth the contentious OF the
4 ..es the opinion states the contentious
y. 4. Attendants. which arc In substance
~ olointif has been guilty Of iIches
A J, soencr asserting her Claims and
IA therefore. he denied equitable re
4 !. NJ, As 10 500 acres Of thc land, she
4 saeIoded by judgment rendered in
~, sult brought 10y her children and
4 n, in which the 500 acres were award
a !, am Charles Cleveland, defendant
a 4. uit, that She received ana used
i, from her first husband, Andrew \.
..,A souivalcnt to her interest in this
4 i and also received a portion Of that
.s,sd Ms her children for their interest;
as life tenant the complainant is
,ied to no interest In the oil produced.
!, ,sste being limited 10 the surface,
4 MAT in no event should receiver be
galted.
vas shown on the hearing that the
I'm was granted by the Mexican govern
4, TO John A. Yeatch and was owned by
At his death. lie died intestate and
4 his children, Andrew A. Neatch,
ssted this land Andrew a, Veatch
IA Dtestate and under the law Of
sost and distribution in force in Texas,
tqate for lie in one-thlrd Of his one
la vas vested in his wife. who is the
ERn, complainant.
Ne opinion goes on to state that until
/ discovery OF oil this land was Of little
liz and was untenccd, noting that since
discovery Ok oil the land mas become
8J valuable
Glh the exception Of the complninant's
tus the opinion states, the various de
slts own the land held ny them re.
astely deriving title by mcsne con
fpgces from the heirs &C John y. Nedtgh
II al except the 500 acres known aS The
lEnIes l.. cleveland tract, ami they hold
Nj under Ike cOnycyanCeS Irom CleNe-
ID The latter acquired title 20 this as
Etlst all the chldrFn and grandchildren
Loan A. Veatch 10y a compromise JudS
~. Of the district court Of JenelSun
niy rendered June I. 1887, In suit
kgght by them. The plaintiff was not a
trJ 10 the sun hut received some Of the
4alty from her children, however, for the
fpsr Of the family
/ sas shown that Mrs. Snow never came
ItIss neither did she exercise any acts
ownership over the land, but On May
l0l, she made q claim on each of the
aadaniS for joint possession and for an
0lntng Of the oil taken, which was re
lAe first question presented has been fire.
unity decided by the supreme court of
Pas where II Is held that II the com
nants claim Is a legal one, is IN the
sent case capable OF heug established
law the doctrine of lachcs and stale
n does not apply. II Is simply a queS-
o. adverse possession.
he contention that the complainant was
REd by the judgment rendered In the
against Cleveland when she was not
nrV 10 II can not he sustained, and
~ TACT that her co-tcuGnts might have
eftltd fol her Ia thelr names does not
~ the matter
aet Is no clement Of eStoppel in the
AZ lhat the comp nant received part Of
money realized by her children from
SAFE OF their interest They had not
mpled 10 sell her interest or the land
Dat II they had and she had used
money, she would not have been estop-
because she was 3 married woman.
eineut question arises in regard 10
lsht OF life tenant as respects pc
gum OIL obtained from the land Therc
ny 70 be no decision in Texas on this
hN
Ns In fact, none directly in point,
statute under which the complainant
w aer life estate appears under
aead Descent and Distribution, the
sous OF which are thar If person
Mestote, leaving a child or children
uef descendants, the surviving hus-
u WE shall take one-third Of the
Vas; estate, and the balance of such
ny estate shall 90 to the child or
Oh deceased and their descend
me surviving husband or wife shall
enutied 70 an estate for life In
,sia o. the land Of the Interstate, with
r rnaer 10 the child or children of the
,ne and their descendants" Revised
~ OF Texas. Art 1850.
3e question OF the passing OF the
~. I,shtS' In which is included oil, %
.nsplnnant, the opinion says that all
y either personal property or
W., ssg u the mineral rights of Andrew
"a isns Az Nlltue OF MS ownership -
n uid not pass, one-third TO his
~. .ur NE as land, IT. passed MS per-
!. Popettl. one.third TO her absolutely.
IN. authorities are quoted.
Ri Tsr.ahIhg further Of the passing OF
In, rssl rights the opinion SAYS the
III ana Ass itself into a question OF
n ~ VII unaer what circumstances min
~ IN tisuopted as mode Of using the
III M 'als case the remainder men being
NY, w owners of seventeen, eighteen lis
h ny,, naVe taken possession of the
FL N sspsfy TO the exclusion OF the life
m gave converted Il into an oil
ihs SKATER alter has committed no vase
L. Nit, Hls,,lo be decided Is not whether
Ia az NH Tor oil herself, but whether
y nods :. 10 acquiesce in the changing
"a ma III use The estates were joiut
nv. vsange was made. and no par
tsara .yeManded. Consequently. any
Be, n Al =, ehsues must innure TO the
Hesf Ints,os.I Tue cotenants In proportion
fplnIsr . az length Of this subject,
Dc 10 n,s sash that the Texas statute
f. thirh rnduoh on dover, but deincs
IN nsr, nnuer the civil law would have
MI, ssssvirnet an estate moi Imnanchahle
Ii h ibis Is especially Significant
~ 4 Ina t1,in n'red that the Texas svs.
law. 10 devised largely from
ger Rutlee,hi.
~ II eivas onie feature Of the statut
+ tssts KS ne surviving husband tn
II tsih Ia. the land of the wife up n
| fplse Thil gives her In his land NJ
~ lirpn,s. nls Is a complete answer 10
~ rhether nat the rule shall dcpcnd
~ n the mines are open or not al the
ftsan On bn,nahoand'S death, because h.
IN i dens position ut the head OF to
/ Hff's eo,nr,ned TO tx tho uss OF his
EF fsnlir hsHrate with the nacessities
to on0 mink the complainant g.
A after A.ssIniecmh II the cil pro
ny ana marketing az expenses VI
INN sbsa, entitled to the net one
N such rnulely. then she Is EMIT "a
\ sitst. n Yield imoounded and nut
Ale the ne paid TO her during hfr
n tae rsorpns OF the fund Is pre-