Court Opinion

ID: 9830621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:19:57.538302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.876205
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees present a motion for rehearing, in which, among other things, they insist that we erred in not passing upon the question of what effect should be given to the fact that the surface lease, executed by J. D. Porter as guardian for the minors’ interests in the lots in controversy, had been executed without a formal order of the probate court so authorizing. In answer to this contention, and as an explanation of our failure to notice the fact, it will be stated that the leases of the mineral interests of the minors had been made pursuant to an order of the court as provided by articles 4152a and 4152b, Y. S. Tex. Civ. Stats. ■ And that article 4136 of the same statutes provides that—
“The guardian may rent the improved property of the ward, other than such property as is named in article 4134 without an order of the court authorizing him to do so, and either at public or private. renting.”
Article 4134 referred to in the quotation relates alone to “a farm, plantation, manu-factory or business belonging to the estate,” and not to improved property such as was the property in question, and as is provided for in article 4136.
In view of these statutes it was not supposed that appellees placed any reliance upon the contention now made, particularly in view of the fact that by no counter proposition, cross-assignment, or argument in ap-pellees’ briefs were we called upon to rule on the question; on the contrary, appellees in their briefs stated that—
“The controlling issues presented by the pleading and evidence were two: First, had the appellant at the date of the institution of appellees’ suit abandoned the inten'tion to drill for oil and gas on the leased premises? Second, had the drilling of the well upon the leased premises become unlawful because in violation of the city ordinance of the city of Ranger?”
[6] But nevertheless we feel no hesitation in now saying that a consideration of the several articles of the statutes referred to, and of the undisputed fact that the surface leases relate to improved property, leads to the conclusion -that the guardian’s lease of the surface of the minors’ interests is not void because of a failure to procure an order from the probate court therefor. There is also the further contention that we erred in concluding that the evidence did not establish beyond question appellants’ intent to abandon the oil leases, but on this branch of the case we find no sufficient reason for altering the views originally expressed.
The motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.