Legal Opinion

Bristow v. Selman

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 5, 1966No. A-11521PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

2Per curiam

On the authority of Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 135 Tex. 503, 144 S.W.2d 878, the Court of Civil Appeals has held that the one-eighth of the royalty reserved by Mrs. A. Mae Weeden et al. in their deed to Austin and Bristow must be carved out of the one-fourth mineral interest reserved by Austin and Bristow in their deed to R. E. Selman. 402 S.W.2d 520. We are in agreement with this holding, and the application for writ of error is Refused, No Reversible Error.

Petitioners argue that the contrary conclusion is indicated by our opinion in Pich v. Lankford,…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Pich v. LankfordTexas Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Selman v. BristowCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966

4Cited by4 opinions

  1. Johnson v. FoxCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1985
  2. Brady v. Security Home Investment Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1982
  3. Benedict G. Wenske and Elizabeth Wenske v. Steve Ealy and Deborah EalyTexas Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Kay Brooke-Willbanks v. Flatland Mineral Fund, LP Flatland Sidecar, LLC And Expedition Royalty Company, LLC, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2023

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

Powered by the Exa API