Legal Opinion

St. Louis Royalty Co. v. Continental Oil Co.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided January 18, 1952No. 13525PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.

Alleging ownership of a one-twelfth mineral interest in formations below 3500 feet in described lands, and that defendants were asserting adverse claims thereto and without right producing minerals therefrom, appellant, plaintiff below, brought this suit to remove cloud and for an accounting.

The claim in substance was: that on or about October 15, 1936, its predecessors in title had executed an oil and gas lease as to this interest for a primary term of three years from ¡January 1, 1937; that neither oil, gas, nor other mineral was discovered on, or produced from, the…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Watson v. RochmillTexas Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Decker v. KirlicksTexas Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Rosenborough v. CookTexas Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Ryan v. KentTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  5. Knight v. Chicago Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1945

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. PoolTexas Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Clopton Rogers v. OsbornTexas Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Woodson Oil Company v. PruettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
  4. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Newman Brothers Drill. Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Minnie E. Haby, Joined Pro Forma by Her Husband, Homer H. Haby v. Stanolind Oil and Gas CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API