*1 appeal taken was from which the order convinced Appeals made the Court of a final case. disposition correct May 1952.
Opinion delivered: Giles, al. et Poole, Jr., et al. v. Bascom T. J. 26, 1952. March A-3272. Decided No. May Rehearing overruled 464.) W., Series, (248 S. 2d Pope Angleton, Pope, Jr., Master & for the and Alex Pooles, Petitioners, Rucks, Floyd Kee,& Enlow Enlow Angleton, Ducroz, for J. L. Intervenor. General, Daniel, Attorney Mathews,
Price D. Jesse Charles Luton, Jr., Jacobson, Attorney General, P. and E. for Assistants Nevill, Merrill, Board, Bryan, Guy Roy L. L. P. J. Bell, Ryche Bell, Bell, Dyche, Jr., Sourgeon E. & all C.W. Houston, Co., respondents. Oil & Brazos Gas Mr. Justice Wilson delivered the of the Court. (T. Poole, Jr., Poole) Plaintiff al. below J. et and Donald K. *2 sought gained injunction School Board accepting prohibiting body of Texas from bids and exe- cuting gas County, oil and leases certain land in Brazoria granted temporary injunction, which, Texas. The trial court appeal, (239 665.) Immediately has been dissolved. 2d. S. W. accepted thereafter Land Board School bids and executed question. applied leases land Plaintiffs for and were granted writ of error. dissolving temporary injunction
An order is effective im- though mediately 385(d), T.R.C.P.; even Alpha not final. Rule Terrell, 257, 372; Petroleum Co. v. 122 Texas 59 S. W. 2d. Dun- Boyd, 1926, can v. CCA 281. S. W. temporary injunction sought
The on the basis that authority. injunction Board exceeded its Since the was dis- acted, contempt solved at the time the Board an action for would thing not lie. It would be a vain for this court to reinstate the injunction sought prohibited when the act already to be has City occurred. Therefore this case is University moot. of West Martin, 354, Place v. 638, (S. 132 Texas 1939) ; 123 W. 2d. S. Ct. International Ass’n. of Machinists v. Federated Ass’n. of Ac- cessory Workers, 624, (Tex. 133 Texas 2d. 282 S. W. Com. App., ; 1939) Culpepper, West v. 135 Texas 140 S. 2d.W. 166, (Tex. App., 1940) ; Corporation Com. Service Finance Grote, 93, (Tex. 133 Texas App., 1939). W. 2d. Com. remedy. Plaintiffs are not 5421c, without See Art. Vernon’s Statutes, Annotated seq. et pass upon
We do not controversy. the merits of the The case is dismissed. International Ass’n. of Machinists v. Federal Ass’n. Accessory Workers, supra.
Opinion delivered March Mr. Sharp, joined by Justice Smith, Justices Griffin dissenting. majority opinion of the Court in this case decides a great public importance, and involves the determina- public rights tion of may interests under conditions which repeated any By rights time. petitioners have destroyed, rights similarly as well as the of others case, that, theory the facts of
situated based that, moot, therefore, the issues involved become brought questions now before determine the Court should not moot, dismissing By the action has become it. case because rights only majority opinion affect not results rights others, parties the opinion: petitioners, suit. but also the following majority are some of the results Land Office (1) permits It Commissioner of the , State, regularly patents issued to cancel that have been in said and to execute mineral leases on the lands described though so; (2) by law do patents, he not authorized even litigate acquired patents compels owners of land holding great land, expense, title to with those at Commissioner Land Office leases of the General issued *3 law; any authority (3) it force without of and continues necessary pre- theory party in to a a suit the State is cancel- from vent the Commissioner of the General Land Office ling thereon, patent issuing leases such by without the owner of the land suit cannot be maintained obtaining through of an act first consent of the State Legislature authorizing suit, despite (j) of such 5421c, 6 enacted in 1939. of Article involved, necessary get picture
To clear of the issues proceedings court, proceedings in to review the in the trial Appeals, proceedings in Court. of brought Poole, Jr., K. This and Donald Poole suit was T. J. School Land Board and Commissioner intervened, Company General Office. The Brazos Oil & Gas intervened, aligned respondents; and is with the and J. L. Ducros aligned petitioners. and is undisputed. peti- purpose facts are of suit enjoin
tioners was to Land Board the Commis- School leasing, attempting Land Office from or to sioner of General lease, development, that had for mineral certain areas 28, 1951, patented by February court en- On trial State. “accepting any joined the of Board from bid or members gas any of area lo- for an oil and or leases on bids lease following grants patents cated within the boundaries County, Texas, issued Brazoria heretofore the State Republic Texas and the of Mexico Coahuila (1) Survey or Texas”: The Calvin dated on about Sumrels August 28, land; (2) approximately 1476 acres of August Survey ap- J. H. or dated on about Gamble proximately land; (3) H. Butler acres the William Sur- vey July 3, 1847, approximately on or 1476 acres dated about Survey land; (4) A. on Murrie dated or about the Rebecca land; 11, 1886, approximately (5) the February acres of 13, 1832, approxi- dated December Parker Grant Williams land; granting purporting mately or “and from 1107 acres of grant any gas any or of the area within oil and lease leases surveys grants patents, or or the boundaries of said clouding them, encumbering otherwise the title of said * * plaintiffs *.” to said or areas area Temporary Injunction also decreed: “The herein It was granted full and effect in remain in force accordance with shall prayer Plaintiff Intervenor until Final Hear- of Plaintiffs and ing time herein on the merits this cause at which there shall injunction permanent determined shall whether such be made Attorney unless and until such time as the proper in a institutes suit court cancel and Texas annul patents said pat- action cancel annul does said question.” ents insofar affect lands in undisputed It is areas Board advertised development patent for lease are located within the surveys described, petitioners calls of the above and that own undisputed patents interests therein. It is also issued surveys cancelled, validity for such have never been nor Their *4 by questioned judicial proceedings, and that were declared by Office, void the of Commissioner the Land General for the purpose executing of leases thereon. Appeals
The of Civil based its on decision the case Brother, of T. & Short v. W. Carter 133 Texas 2dW. authority 953. That case involved the of the Land Com- being missoiner to execute mineral on certain leases tracts as “unsold, public land,” school described in Section 8 of free Chapter Acts, Regular Session, Legislature, 42nd enacted pertinent part “Any in of which Act reads as follows: person unsurveyed who discovers area school land which of has not been listed loMd, records the Land as school Office ground and is not in pre- actual on the with land conflict viously appropriated appears sold or and which on the official map unsurveyed land, may Land apply writing as in Office county surveyor surveyed, and have the same and after the field thereof *5 8 and 8-A of General Land Office is found in Sections part pertinent
Article of Sec- 5421c Article 5421c-5. The marshes, islands, lakes, inlets, bays, tion 8 “All reads: salt water by limits, that and reefs owned within tidewater State portion Texas, jurisdiction the Gulf of Mexico within the land, surveyed and all un- unsold free school both * * subject surveyed, by shall to lease be Commissioner part 8-A in reads: and channels Section “The beds rivers belonging subject development to the shall State be to petroleum recovery and to lease contract for oil * * gas provides natural Article 5421e-5 and/or islands, lakes, etc., “belonging to salt water described therein subject (All supplied.) emphases State” shall be to lease. provided It will be noted that in Section it is that the lands subject lease, described therein “owned State” shall be to provided 8-A and Article it 5421c-5 is “belonging the lands therein described to State” shall be subject to lease. Nowhere the law is it shown that lands de- outstanding patents scribed in subject shall be lease without obtaining judicial proceedings first patents. a to cancel such Terrell, 1904 the case of Juencke 98 Texas Juencke, desiring W. S. came to this Court decision.
purchase acres, a application tract of 640 purchase filed his complied requirements with the of the statutes make application. Gaines, speaking Court, such expressed Chief Justice for this policy of this State with reference to lands that patented following language: been in the approve Commissioner refused to
“The the field notes and to classify place market, land upon and value the and to be- survey appears cause the was ‘in conflict with what be grant league prior incomplete of a of land made governments Philip States Coahuila and P. Texas * * * Dever.’ dispute
“We are of the that where there is a as be- party tween the State and another toas title to a tract land, compelled can not Commissioner be to make sale. hardly scope pass It within the of his functions or duties to upon cases; such titles in and we should reluctant to hold Legislature impose duty upon him, intended to in the language showing clearly absence the statute intent. original appro- It is known that at the date of the act which priated many large lands to fund these the school there were lying persons bodies land in the State held who asserted thereto, adjudicated title titles had never whose Legis- were suppose It conceded. is unreasonable to that the put sale, lature intended to such lands the market for litigation thus turn loose the courts as between flood of purchasers contrary, and the claimants. adverse On the we *6 230 Legislature reference to them purpose with
think that the the part eighth is by act. That section shown the section of the is act, any any or of the lands described as follows: 'When by any public of the the held or owned other lands of State fund, any funds have in which this or or land State such any person interest, by or held, occupied asso- claimed State, fund, adversely corporation, or to ciation or Attorney duty to institute suit it shall of the General be therefor,’ etc. think is to inferred that From we be Legislature policy were claimed of the in reference to lands which putting by parties title before third was first to establish its sale; them it was not intended the market for controversy between the should be sold until State supplied.) adjudicated.” (Emphasis and the had been claimants Fitzgerald Robison, v. 110 Texas case power to this That involved the W. came Court. case per- of the issue a Commissioner of the General prospect Office to alleged gas mit to for oil and natural on certain unlawfully property patented to have and to been be ruled State. The Land Office Commisisoner of authority, proceedings he did not mandamus were have such permit. compel instituted to lips, speaking him to issue such Chief Justice Phil- Court, case, in that for this wrote following opinion: quote and we from the patented Smith “The land was to Ashbel here involved patent year patent. The under that 1859 and it is now held by any at the hands of State. has never annulled suit recognized validity years sixty has For more than by any part. far action on its As between so as indicated therefore, parties, has the status State and other land titled land. officer, Commisisoner, not think an executive
“We do the Land disregard by patent, authority liberty has the or is at grant void, own action in effect declare it his it; compelled conflict to do so. and he not be should refused to “It this reason that the Commissioner permit, approved. issue the his be action must his fuñe- judicial “The It is not is officer. Commissioner State, grants formally tion annul made of land respected made, until aside because so set entitled to be only appropriate judicial proceedings. patent can A to land right prior attacked one invested with some patent. Texas, 393, Wing, Dunn 128 S. W. particular wrongfully patented, and it “If the land has been domain, remedy rightfully part prosecuted the Attor- *7 is an action in the District Court State ney 5468.” General. Article case, Phillips support in that Chief Justice
To decision part quoted I quoted opinion in v. Terrell from the Juencke above. Bradford, 515,
In 121 Texas 50 1932 case State v. 1065, Court, opinion by in S. 2d was decided this W. it was said: long by State, patents and
“So as the awards issued through proper officers, covering the in land bed the North uncancelled, Fork of Red River remain the Land Commissioner authority patents has no annul to annul them. To awards duty, duty not a ministerial respect and under the in law no such this requires rests the Land This Commissioner. judicial authority. exercise of has Nor the Land Commissioner power permit acquire others to on the land cov- by patents regularly ered proper and awards issued authorities, representing State, differences, any, until the if existing patentees between the State and awardees and assignees, adjusted adjudicated. their patents have been proper awards issued officers stand as a barrier permits sought issuance of the mineral Caswell Reed. Robison, v. 485, 765, Guenther 118 Tex. 17 S. 2d 32 W. S. W. 640; Ray Robison, 2d 331, v. 541; 118 Tex. 15 2d S. Fitz- W. gerald Robison, 468, 768; 110 Tex. 220 S. W. O’Keefe v. Robison, , 116 Tex. 854.” W. In Giles, the recent case Ohio Oil Co v. 149 Texas 235 2d S. W. prior this Court in 1950 adhered de- cisions cited above. urged the Court of Civil it was this in case that submerged lands, areas were
estate in those comes under the terms of Article 5421c-5 and Sections 8 and 8-A of any Article I 5421c. fail to find lan- guage therein patents that authorizes the cancellation permits may that be issued on the land described patents, judicial proceedings without patents. to cancel such justify To language such clearly action the of the Act should show that intent. I upholding theory, have found no decision any neither has decision been cited that will sustain that theory. The Appeals, discussing Court of Civil after Article
232 is, effect, opinion
5421c-3-5, proceeding held: “In our appearing has State a suit given instance, cannot the suit sued in this its consent to be maintained.” question, assume, passing purpose us Let for the case was correct opinion of the court in the Short holding necessary party. in- That case was a Act, in 1938. was rendered and the volved the Act, Legislature very promptly in amended the 1931 holding adopted (j) of in that case and to meet the 5421c, reads: of Article aggrieved corporation action “Any person, firm, or *8 Act, provisions the or under of taken the Commissioner vacancies, purchase any application or lease to with reference may county any the where suit the District Court of institute elsewhere, situated, try part and there land is but not alleged any vacancy boundary, title, ownership and of of issues involved, rights preference of such as well as the issues of the plaintiff person, firm, corporation, provided. herein or filing thirty (30) days shall after the there- in such suit within original petition copy of therein to be cause a certified of upon County At- or of served sheriff constable Travis Commissioner, torney cause such General of Texas showing papers filed return said service to be officer’s Attorney answers inter- General or in said cause. Whether instance, first follow- said cause or institutes suit venes ing filing application, all of suits of such the venue land, thereof, county any part shall be in the where such litigation prosecuted been located. When such shall have is a judgment, binding said shall be final mandatory Attorney It Texas. shall be (Emphasis sup- intervene in the State in such cases.” behalf of plied.) light emergency clause Act throws rights Legislature prevent acquired intention of being destroyed by the patents from acts the Commissioner clause, Office, section reads: and that of the General commonly persons that numerous known “The fact as ‘Va- by existing encouraged cancy Statutes to seek to Hunters’ recognized destroy and landmarks and to discredit old lines alleged positions to create surveys in order into other shift profit, which seldom benefit from which can but vacancies alleged many unproven fund, but vacan- school the free disregard recently granted and sold or leased in been cies have long taxpaying citizens who have believed them- land, many of such suits the true owners selves being filed such areas and are to recover from filed occupying people in some cases been the same for who have many generations, and suits are now on file in which the arbitrary granting' the Land Commissioner in vacan- action of impossible cies will throw landowners the almost task retracing original many ‘footsteps in surveyor’ lost cases of fifty years ago made to one hundred in order over- pronouncement come of the Land Commissioner vacant, development land is normal such areas is retarded the detriment of landowners and of the schools depend upon operation, tax revenues for their and that good given faith owners claimants lands are no sufficient rights thereon, preference emergency create an impera- necessity requiring tive that the Constitutional Rule bills be, days is, read on three several hereby same sus- pended, and this Act shall take effect shall be in force from enactment, and after (Em- the date and it is so enacted.” phasis supplied.) (j), quoted above, was construed this Court Corporation
in the case Production United Hughes, *9 Texas 2d 327. In W. it case was said: “The recent legislature (1939) permit enactment of the application seems to one whose rejected suit, has been to file but the State is re- quired to intervene.” Corporation, In the case of State v. Gulf Oil Tex. App., Civ. 197, 199, “Now, 2d it was said:
166 S. W. it seems to us that passed 1939 in the the Act of was belief that the policy better claiming rejected application under a was to allow one to liti- gate vacancy litigate question of pro- same in —to binding ceeding State; that as to prospective appli- can be no of a law there but cation that this deduction is correct.” Giles, the recent case
In Commissioner of the General Office, al., Refused, et al. v. Kretzmeier et Land Writ E., N. R. Appeals 2d Court Civil 239 W. S. said: “Plain- aggrieved by being action of the tiffs Commisisoner of the declaring vacancy that such L. 0. in existed approving G. purpose application, being said this cause to determine right join exist, they to vacancy had did did not or whether a Attorney General in cause the Commissioner said (j).” 5421c, under subsection this state Article governs proceedings construing In the Act of 8 and Sec- case, it overlooked Section should be (j) all included 8-A Subsection tion part Act, is of the 1939 and Article 5421c-5 Article 5421c together Act, connection and should construed foregoing owned the land describe 5420. The Sections Article lease; subject belonging and if there is to the State controversy dispute about ac- arise should quired necessary patents, resort to the courts it is provides: dispute, (j) such “When settle prosecuted judgment, litigation final said shall have pro- binding upon It also of Texas.” shall be State Attorney mandatory to in- for the vides: “It shall be in such cases.” The Court of tervene in Appeals of the State behalf opinion, (j) in its and based did not mention Subsection holding holding case. The its conclusion on the the Short ground that, appears to be based since that court suit, party nor not a neither trial court was cause, Appeals any jurisdiction of the of Civil had justify such all entered were ineffective. To orders therein being correct, that the it must be held trial court action as not, (j), the jurisdiction did under Subsection Court of Civil holding. agree I such a case. cannot question presented to I will now consider the moot this Court respondents. sup- Company, one of the Brazos Oil & Gas port it is the Pooles filed this suit in of its motion shown that Board, restrain district court the School leasing, lease, enjoin attempting to for mineral it from development, petition, until described in their belong judicial first determined final decree such lands February 16, 1951, to the restraining On the trial issued its State. court Company, which order. Thereafter Brazos Oil & Gas sought highest leased, al- bidder on the land to be was *10 defendant, lowed intervene as and J. L. Ducros was allowed temporar- plaintiff. The as Land Board was intervene School awarding ily enjoined accepting mineral leases on from bids gave question. ap- land in The Land Board notice of School per- peal Appeals, appeal to the Court Civil was fected. 9, 1951, May Appeals the C irt Civil rendered its
On State, opinion, that the suit was one held legislative except sanction. therefore not maintainable injunction judgment and rendered dis- dissolved That court rehearing missing respondents’ The motion for filed suit. May 9, 1951, May 1951. On at a later respondents was denied day Appeals the Court of Civil had ren- the same on time judgment, accepted Land Board School its bid dered Company land, for mineral Gas on the Brazos Oil & leases company covering leases all and awarded question, company and delivered said leases land in to that May 9, entry dated The record after respondents’ rehearing that after discloses motion for further Appeals May 30, of Civil Court on was overruled filed, application required by law, for writ of error was granted. Company Brazos Oil & and same Gas filed its mo- application said because said tion to dismiss are leases now in question moot, because the full force effect and on 25, 1951, July Subsequent this Court overruled said motion. Court, after cause, this action of this submission of the motion, sustained such this Court dismissed the cause for question had moot. the reason that become The action of theory injunction is based Court since the was dis- acted, at the time School Land solved Board it will be a vain thing injunction sought reinstate the pro- when the act to be already has occurred. This in majority hibited opinion plaintiffs remedy, holds are not without and dismiss the case. summary helpful.
A of the material facts will be The Court opinion May 9, 1951, rendered its on and on day same leases were executed. The law allowed days petitioners fifteen within which to file a motion for rehear- ing, required by law, done as which was and same was overruled May 1951; and the cause reached this Court in due time application error, granted. for writ on an which was majority cites certain support cases to the con- case is To clusion moot. review the facts of each case space, but, much time cited would consume suffice it say, the facts those cases different from the facts in this case, great that a and do not show interest was involved, should not control here. This case involves very important question, vital to the interests of those who majority opinion hold land this State. is not sustained great public policy weight nor of this of au- *11 dealing question. Besides thority with the and the decisions patented leases on of the execution of sanction pending judgments the causes are of courts which before final, majority opinion permitted if the is re- have become it will a constant source of liti- main the law of this State gation. determining moot, question whether has become im- a clear distinction between cases that involve
courts draw questions questions portant public and cases that involve litigants important only A. to the the court. In 132 before stated, R., page an this distinction is based L. on juris- analysis question of this courts other exhaustive It is follows: dictions. as appellate may proposition appeal
“The court retain an hearing questions public and determination if it involves though parties interest even it has become moot so far as the though particular parties action are concerned or dismissed, supported, directly it be either desire that great weight implication, by authority.” S., See also C. J. Actions, page Subsection d Section 7. citing many many jurisdictions
After cases from different stated, supporting quoting many the rule from above cases, annotation, page R., A. on 1189 of 132 L. states: appeal ground are more inclined retain an on “Courts likely questions if interest involved are to arise they by frequently in unless are settled court of future appears last resort. This both from cases which mention the question frequently fact that the ing will arise as a reason for hear- deciding appeal and from the fact cases again likely is not or at to arise least not given dismissing appeal.” often is reason for alleged grounds Petitioners’ suit is based authority School Board did have the min- execute patents, eral leases the land in the described ob- injunction prohibiting tained an Land Board from the School accepting bids for leases on said land. The sus- district court allegations, enjoined tained their Land Board the School executing day from the mineral leases on the land. On the same the Court of Civil held that the courts did not jurisdiction cause, for the reason that party suit, was not a to the the School Land Board executed the leases. The execution of the leases did not constitute on the au- petitioners. Their attack of action whole cause *12 execute such leases still thority Board to Land of the School court, of under the terms Sub- jurisdiction of the The remains. attached, having authority the pass upon (j), to section issue, wherein render moot the did not execution the leases of obvious, the School Land public whether interest the is That still re- authority leases. issue execute such Board has to decided. major question before the be mains the question a are not to declare The of this inclined courts importance In is concerned. Co., moot when a matter of Refining 296, Texas & 126 case Brown v. Humble Oil Texas, 314, 935, (reh. R. 1107 den. 126 87 83 S. W. 2d 99 A. L. dealing 1393), question, 1069, 2d 101 A. L. R. with S. W. it was said: decision, presented question presented was
“The first Appeals, question in the Court of Civil is that involved upon here is This contention is based an affidavit which moot. completed had well shows that was producing 28, permit per- oil under such since June granted 21, drilling April 1933, mit was on and a contract was 4,May 1933, on drill the A suit filed in the made well. was and, permit May 12, 1933, upon district court to set aside the restraining bond, temporary the execution of a order was 31, May 1933, entered on that date. order was This continued and, upon hearing thereof, 1, 1933, was order on June appeal Appeals, dissolved. taken An was to the Court of Civil 2, 1933, appeal and on June bond was filed. Court of Appeals correctly held that the case not moot. This holding sound, of the Railroad because order Commission subject question is to review the courts. See 4662, 6453, 6049c, Certainly articles Ann. Vernon’s Civ. St. parties state of record not litigation terminated. this con- settled until has overrule We tention.” Commission, Railroad the case of Gulf Production Co. v. 359, App.,
Tex. Civ. 2d it was said: W. drilling injunction said asked for to restrain well “The appellant’s whole cause of action. Its did not constitute attack granting permit validity order said of the Commission’s grounds alleged jurisdiction of remain. The the court on the still having attached, completion validity order said over validity issue of moot the render of the well would 238 being issue, major question involved in the That
said order. litigated. suit, be Brown v. Humble Oil & still remained 935; Co., Ref. 2d Oil & Co. S. W. Humble Texas Ref. Comm, App., 68 2d 624.” R. Tex Civ S. W. R. 6049c, above, cited relate the duties of Articles 6453 may and how its orders reviewed Railroad Commission be 8-A, 12 and Section the courts. Subsections 5421c, Article and Article relate to (j) of 5421c-5 Board, may powers Land and how of the School its orders relating comparison A courts. reviewed articles relating Railroad those the School Commission similarity purpose. Board shows *13 holding opinion, majority moot after case is dismissing same, petitioners states that are not without remedy, very to Article 5421c. That is a elaborate cites them article, many relating expansive subjects with deals State; perceive specific I in this can no but remedy provided petitioners them- therein can avail protect rights, their it litigate unless be inferred therefrom selves go rights can into the courts their Company, Brazos Oil & Gas which holds under the opinion, majority If one then leases. this be results of petitioners will have institute suit the Brazos Oil Company validity to test leases to it & Gas negative policy the State. This would the law that the parties litigated great expedition as should be “with dispatch expense litigants the least both to and at may practicable.” Rule 1 the state See of the Texas Rules Too, petitoners if of Civil Procedure. forced to do this to rights, protect (j) their then Article 5420 and ignored 6 of Article 5421c aside en- must be set tirely. pass upon further states that “we do not controversy.” moot, If cause merits and should be dismissed, controversy passed merits of and the will not be referring upon, purpose petitioners I 5421c see no to Article remedy. their judgment I think the of Civil should be reversed court affirmed. and the the trial should be joins Associate Justice in this dissent. Griffin Smith Opinion March delivered notes have been returned to the Land Office and approved Commissioner, and filed with the Land shall a purchase days sixty right (60) thereafter for preference by price fixed the Land minimum at the lease thereon provided consideration Commissioner, the other in addition to question in that (Emphasis supplied.) The involved herein.” General Land Office whether the Commissioner case was League in the Morales the land described to have was authorized any land resurveyed, if there was therein in ascertain order to that the land unsold. The facts show that was vacant and vacancy dis- resurveyed, 3000 acres was about and that declaring patents judicial void without covered. process in that case. was not involved plea the Jurisdiction It was held in case that the the Short being by in filed Commissioner the General Office against sustained, and have been effect suit State should reversed, temporary and the the trial court was by injunction dissolved. The Court issued the trial court was in the Short case case felt that the decision opinion, decision, it re- controlled its and so stated in dismissing by petitioners versed and rendered the cause suit, temporary injunction issued dissolved trial court. relating expresses policy public Article this State claimants, held, occupied, or claimed adverse places duty upon Attorney and it General to institute applicable part reads: suit therefor. any public of the Article “When held, any occupied, person, claimed lands are State, any corporation, adversely or to association or cause, fund or when lands are forfeited to the ** Attorney *.” suit therefor General shall institute undisputed petitioners It is claim the land described patents thereon, insti- issued action has been no undisputed patents. tuted in the courts cancel It is also vacancy is a or an excess no has claimed there one subject de- surveys for mineral to be leased case; velopment, as was done the Short but is contended authority support action of the Commissioner