.
F&r &ployee Of a l.loeBmxt deiler in Oil~~W gas seauritiee,who a&e ae agent illsoouringoil mi ga6 hmm~ for the dealer, is requiredto obtainslioeneeunder the Texaa SecuritiesAd.
Dear SIX
You have requeetebthe opinionof this Departme& upon the foll.qdngfaotual+Ilationr
%vin YOU plebe ravise me if l per~0n ~b2 acceptsemploymentfor a dealer in oil and gas seourltielis requiredto be lipeneedunder the Seom~ties Act.
*The faata in the cam &e theme: a holder of a licenseemployedam individual&r the pur- pose of seour~ or takjnga block of oil and ga8 leases. ?he leaem were taken in ,thename of the baler; thy employeeoontaotedthe laud ownera,offeredto lease the luxt for and in the rune of the licenseddealer. The oonlpen6atioB agreed to be paid for the taking of thie block of oiland@e lsaeeswae lOmute per wre for each aore eo leaeed. The m&Loyee did not sell or attemptto cell such leasesnor &Lb he deal in wuch leasee,other thw to plaoe them in the bank subjeotto accepmoe by the dealer. Such employeewae a Hotly Public and In the esetutics of such leame took the a&knowlHI&wnteof the variou8 land ownera."
The fsctualsituatim etateb above is preatioally identicalwith the faots set forth in the opini011 Of the ' .
HonorableD. RiohardVoges - Page 2 (V-221)
SupremeCourt of Texas in Fowl&r v. Hulte, ~38 Tax. 636, 161 3. W. 26 478, (1942)wherein it was held a8 followe:
"If the plaintiffinerrorFowleraa aoon- dition precedentto the performanoeof the servi- ces for which he wae employedby defendantin error Rults, prOcuringthe exeoutionof the oil and grs leases by the lami ownere,were requiredto regi- ster ae a dealer under the SecuritiesAct, then any peinon employedby en oil company,or other prorpeo- tive lessee,to obtain or assist $b obtainingoil and gas leasesfrcm land owmre would be requiredto registeraa a dealer in securitiesbefore entering upon the performanoeof his duties. There is in our OpiUiOIlIlO laEIguaf$O in the Act to juf3tifythatCoU- atractionof it and thrt oonstnmtion is not neoeaaw to the aocomplislrmmt of the deolrrtdand obviouspur- pose of the sltrtute.
'ore the amendmentawere enacted." (Empha~~ie added)
The foregoingdoctrinewas again affirmedby the Supreone Court in Hkrren V. Hollingsworth,167 5. W. 2.i735 (1945);but no referencewae made thereinto the amendmantto Article 60&, V.C. S., by the Forty-seventhLegialatuzmin addingSection 33b thereto~ (Chap.363, Sec. 2, Aota'l$kl, 47th Leg. p. 593) aiaoe the tranaao- tion Involvedsroae prior to the paeeageof the Mendment.
Th6 SupremeCourt in the owe of Lewis v. Davis, 199 S.W. (26) 146, 149, hae definitelyconetruedtb meaning of the above an- phasizedsmendmenteto'the SecuritiesAot,aa Pollowe:
"The SecuritiesAct, Regular Session,44th Legislature,Chapter 100, was emendedin 191 by adding to It Sections33a and 33b, Acts ReguLar Session,47th Legislature,Ohspter 363. section 33a relates to the renedy of the purchaseragainat the seller. Section 33b providesthtno person or companyshall bring or maintainan actionfqr the collectionof a oonmieaionor compensation*ror strvioearenderedin the sale or purohaeeof eeouri- ties, aa that term is herein defined,without alleg- ing and provingthat such perrson or companywas duly Honwable D. RlohardVoges -Page 3 (V-221)
lioensedunder the proviaicplstireof aud the seouri- tiea ao'soldor uumhased were duls renirstered uuder the pr~visi~nah&&f.