Court Opinion

ID: 9833368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:39:38.886458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:02.073133
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motions for Rehearing.
By its motion for a rehearing, Humble Oil & Refining Company shows that it does not contest the mineral lease of J. E. Franks on the 5.23 acres of land in controversy, if we adhere to our decision awarding title to the State of Texas. ■ By his motion E. •Cartledge shows that he has no mineral interest in the land, and prays that judgment be rendered for J. E. Franks awarding the mineral lease to him. By its reply to these motions, the State of Texas shows that it does not contest the mineral lease of J. E. Franks. Under our judgment .awarding title to the land to the State of 'Texas, these are the only parties to the suit who could have any interest in the mineral lease; and all motions that judgment be rendered for J. E. Franks for his mineral lease claim are granted. The motion of Humble Company as against the State of Texas is overruled. The former opinion on rehearing is withdrawn, and the portion of the original judgment awarding a mineral lease to E. Cartledge on the 5.23 acres of land is set aside, and it is hereby decreed that he has no mineral interest in the land; and judgment is here rendered for J. E. Franks for his mineral lease claim.
The motions are granted in part, and in part overruled.
Granted in part, and in part overruled.