Case Name: D. J. McDANIEL v. J. T. ROBISON, Commissioner of General Land Office, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-06-25
Citations: 8 S.W.2d 666
Docket Number: No. 4991
Parties: D. J. McDANIEL v. J. T. ROBISON, Commissioner of General Land Office, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 8
Pages: 666–666

Head Matter:
D. J. McDANIEL v. J. T. ROBISON, Commissioner of General Land Office, et al.
(No. 4991.)
Supreme Court of Texas.
June 25, 1928.
Black & Graves and Chas. L. Black, all of Austin, for relator.
R. L. Batts and J. T. Robison, both of Austin, for respondent.
Hill, Neill & Hill, of San Angelo, for corespondent Yates.
E. A. Williams, of Galveston, Underwood, Johnson, Dooley & Simpson, of Amarillo, and T. R. Ereeman, S. W. Marshall, T. L. Foster, J. W. Timmins, and John B. Young, all of Dallas, amici euri®.
Rehearing denied October 17, 192S.

Opinion:
PIERSON, J.
Relator, D. J. McDaniel, seeks a mandamus to require J. T. Robison, commissioner of the general land office, to issue to Kim a permit to prospect for oil and gas on section No. 34½, block 194, certificate S. F. 12394, containing 1,107 acres of land, in Pecos county, Tex., under the Permit and Lease Act of 1917 (Acts 1917, c. 83).
On February 4, 1921, said tract of land was awarded and sold to I. G. Yates, classified as "mineral," and was sold with a reservation of the minerals to the state of Texas. Relator, on November 8, 1926, applied for a permit to prospect for oil and gas on said area under the Permit and Lease Act of 1917. Respondent Robison rejected relator's application, upon the ground that the area was not subject to the application on account of the provisions of the so-called Relinquishment Act of 1919, and that said act repealed and superseded the Permit and Lease Act of 1917. Relator challenges the constitutionality and validity of said Relinquishment Act.
This ease is in all essential respects similar to the case of Greene v. Robison et ah, 8 S.W.(2d) 655, opinion this day delivered. In that case this court upheld the constitutionality and validity of said Relinquishment Act. For the reasons given in that ease, relator is not entitled to a mandamus, and same is denied.