Legal Opinion

Henderson v. Chesley

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1927No. Application No. 14167PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Per curiam

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case, holding the mineral estate subject to .partition, is plainly correct. That court in its opinion, among other things, says:

“Since there has been no development or exploration for minerals in, on or under the land in question, we think that the court should assume for the purpose of partition that each acre of the land contains an equal amount of minerals, and partition by dividing the surface.”

This is no doubt one correct view of the question, but we wish to suggest that in partitioning minerals it is not necessary that the holdings of…

2Cited by26 opinions

  1. Yates v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
  2. Schnitt v. McKellarSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  3. Warner v. WinnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
  4. White v. SmythTexas Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Lichtenstein v. Lichtenstein Building CorporationCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1969

21 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