Legal Opinion

State v. Downman

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 18, 1911PublishedCited by 24 opinions

Appeal from District Court, Llano County; Clarence Martin, Judge. Action by the State against R. H. Down-man to recover taxes. Judgment for defendant, and the State appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtRice, J.

Prior to the 1st day of January, 1907, appellee Downman had purchased, from various persons, as shown by their deeds in evidence, certain interests in and to the minerals, ores, rocks, etc., contained in the lands therein described, and popularly known as “mineral rights.” The language employed in the habendum clauses of all said conveyances, except 6, was as follows; “Have granted, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, sell and convey, unto the said R. H. Downman all metals, ores, granites, rocks, stones and other minerals, metallic and nonmetallic, organic and inorganic, in…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Cummings v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Raymondv v. Chicago Union Traction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
  3. Lively v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Taylor v. Louisville & N. R.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
  5. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. ShannonTexas Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Humphreys-Mexia Co. v. GammonTexas Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Hager v. StakesTexas Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Stephens v. StephensCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
  5. Electra Independent School Dist. v. W. T. Waggoner EstateTexas Commission of Appeals · 1943

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