*1 any granted been or have ever Sheridan kind, which any permits licenses or them, them, would entitle selling beer. engage in the business State testified that he owned Callier City permits, had County but allowed trial. permit expire before Tex.Civ.App. Alexander, 28 “Norton v. denied, holds: 67 S.W. error appel- yet remains, question ‘The lants, dealers, contest liquor entitled proceedings in by injunction the election right equity? if We answer that such existed, doubt, need ever which we determine, it did not exist in this case in- when the case went trial and dissolved, junction was after had ex- the license the time covered pired.’ Act, Liquor 13 of Control “Section amended, 666— Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. ‘Any permit granted under provides: purely personal privi- Act shall be * * * shall not constitute lege ” property.’ conclusions, ques- Under these other in the briefs become imma- discussed
tions terial. judgment of the court learned trial
will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
PLEASANTS, J.,C. absent. al. OIL & CO. et
STANOLIND GAS
STATE et al.
No. 8537. Appeals of Texas. Austin. Civil
June 1937. Rehearing Overruled Feb.
Motions *2 Turner, Dallas, Winn, Rodgers & Clay Campbell, Tallman Donald both and Tulsa, Old., appellant for
Oil & Gas Co.
McMahon,
Cantey, Hanger &
A.
Gillis
Johnson,
Scarbrough, all of
and Warren
Worth,
appellees-appellants
Fort
for
John
Tyler
Tyler.
H.
and
B.
Eulia
Wilson,
Angelo,
Geo. T.
of San
Austin,
Henry
Brooks,
H.
appellees
for
Co.,
Co.,
Cardinal Oil
Geo.
Reid,
Morgan,
Arthur,
D.
H.
H.
Bob
J.
Compton.
W.
McCraw,
Gen.,
Atty.
William
IT.
Grady Chandler,
Atty. Gen.,
ap-
Asst.
for
pellee State of Texas.
Collins,
Snodgrass,
&
of San
Jackson
Bryant.
Angelo,
appellee
M. D.
McClendon,
justice.
chief
boundary
suit.
involves a
It
strip
(east-west)
of land 122.5 varas wide
1,209
long, having
varas
for its east
Tyler survey
west line of
(J.
line the
H.
Tyler survey
1);
No.
and for
its
line the east line of
104 (T. C.
Ry.
104)
Co.
as located
trial court. The involved land is within
oil
Yates
field
county.
Pecos
state,
theory
of a
of at least
122.5
width between the
and 104. The
rights
(sub-
mineral
in 104
ject
interests,
royalty
including that of
state)
are owned
the Stanolind
(appellant Stanolind Oil
Company).
& Gas
appeal
the Stanolind from a
judgment upon a directed verdict estab-
vacancy-
lishing
claimed by
state.
Tyler is established varas east of the
west line
The west line
as-located
placed
vel non
a monument
ground.
The existence
on
Dod for the
exists)
(if it
width
southwest corner of 3.
For a
de
detailed
scription
work,
depend upon
opinions
Dod’s
see
true
*3
7,600
Case,
is
varas
Pandem
Tex.Civ.App.,
104.
line
line of
This
29 S.W.2d
877,
county
Case,
(Runnels
Stanolind
Tex.Sup.,
of 3
of the west
line
101 S.W.2d
801,
due
3),
is a
No.
which
and State v.
Co.,
school
Stanolind
&O. G.
70 Tex.Civ.App.,
west line of
projection
297,
of the
96
south
S.W.2d
298.
1,
Company, block
sur-
N. R. R.
(I. & G.
The
line
7,-
west
the
lease is
4,112
vey
line is
70).
No.
This latter
600 varas east of the west line of 3 as
of 70.
of the southeast corner
varas west
located from Dod’s monumented southwest
there-
location of that corner is
The true
corner of 70 and northwest corner of 3.
boundary issue.
of the
fore determinative
The west lines of the Cardinal leases'-
vicinity
been -a
The
in this
has
area
7,600
are
varas east of the
line of
west
litigation
subject
boundary
fruitful
3 as located from the
spring
so-called car
discovery
oil in the Yates
the
since
corner as southeast corner of 70. See
reached
of these cases have
field. Several
opinions,
above.
courts,
loca
appellate
the
and the relative
The west line of the Bryant
is-
lease
surveys
vicinity,
their
of the
tion
history,
7,600 varas east of the west line of 3 as-
work of
embracing the
point
located from a
47 varas north and
subsequent survey
surveyors and that of
50.6 varas west of the
spring
car
corner.
ors,
particu
have been
with much
carried
point
This
was fixed as the southeast
opinions
Supreme
of the
larity into the
land,
by
corner of 70
George, a licensed
El
and Austin
and of the
Paso
surveyor
employ
of Stanolind. The
Appeals.
it has
of Civil
While
Courts
directed
establishing
verdict
necessary
peruse
the entire
for us
been
is
upon
theory
(1,000 pages), the is
of facts
statement
estopped
Stanolind was
from controverting
comparatively simple;
presented are
sues
George
subject
location. This
will
been
since the evidence introduced has
be treated later.
large measure stated
some
in
other
It is now contended
the Stanolind-that
cases,
purpose
no useful
we can see
the monument
Dod
for the southwest
except
general
reiterating
in
outline,
it here
adjudicated
corner of 3 was
as the correct
opin
referring for more detail to
location of that
Supreme
corner in the
point
this
other cases. At
ions
refer to the
Court’s decision in the Stanolind Case. In
maps
following
cases:
agree.
this we do not
The location of the
Goodrich, Tex.
Corporation v.
Pandem Oil
west line neither of 3 nor of 70 was neces-
879;
877,
Civ.App.,
page
29 S.W.2d
at
sarily
involved
the final decision of the
Smith,
338,
355,
page
122Tex.
at
Turner v.
61
Supreme
proper
Court. The
location of the
792;
&
Stanolind O. G. Co. v.
S.W.2d
directly
south line of 70 was
involved
801,
State, Tex.Sup.,
page
101
at
S.W.2d
decision,
depend-
and.since its location
803.
upon
ed
the location of its east terminus-
gas
granted
has
four oil and
state
(southeast
70),
corner of
that corner .was-
land,
upon
covering
involved
leases
northing,
involved
its
as to
not neces-
following
respectively the
area:
sarily
easting.
clearly
its
We think
strip
immediately
A
varas wide
adju-
the Stanolind decision rests
an
Tyler, to
shall
the west of
which we
dication
is-
southeast corner of 70
Dogie (Dogie
Company)
refer as the
Oil
north
farther
than the car
cor-
lease.
ner.
following
This for
reasons: The
strips
2. Two
52.6 varas
approximately
Stanolind Case was a
state for a
wide,
immediately
oné
west
south
strip
215-vara
between
south
lines of
immediately
Dogie,
the other
half
103,
101, 102,
104, and the
line
north
Dogie.
west of the north half of the
To
the Yates
34½.
(Cardi-
refer as
Cardinal
we shall
ground.
is
of the latter
established
Company)
nal
leases.
Describing the
sued for metes and
tract
strip
immediately
3. A
50.9 varas wide
bounds,
fixed the southwest corner
the state
to the
leases. To
Cardinal
spring cor-
beginning-at
of 101
the car
Bryant
this we shall refer
lease.
70);
-corner
thence
(as
ner
southeast
4,112
length
(the
varas
called
The west line of the
loca west
(the
6,121
7,600
line);
dispute)
tion of
is
thence south
varas
not in
south
spring corner,
lines of
car
or on
east-west
the west
(the
lengths of
combined
1,209 varas)
101, 4,912
“to
with that corner.
It is manifest that
varas
-f-
tract, being the if this
farther
point
located 47 varas
beginning
north,
for,
being the true S.
this additional
would have
area herein sued
same
excess
101,
194, T.
apportioned
Block
C.
sur-
among
nine river
corner of
W.
Co.,
Ry.
patented.”
veys
Case
(61-69).
See Stanolind
throw the south
803,
2,
801,
page
65,
col.
above,
at
101 S.W.2d
line of
20.9
farther north than
beginning
page
col. 1. From
Dod
the
that width between
location and create a
described:
area sued
Since
and 101-104.
34½
with
lines
Thence east
south
of the trial court
verdict,
South East
“7600varas
directed
the Su-
affirmance
*4
stated,
Survey 104,
the North East preme
for
necessarily,
corner of
Court
above
tract”;
south 215 adjudicated
thence
of
of this
the
south line
corner
of the
location
34½,
spring
“which
point
line of
in north
70
not farther
the car
north than
250 varas
point
rehearing opin-
and about
quote
is 215 varas south
corner. We
from the
rock mark-
flat
of a stone mound on a
ion in
West
the Stanolind Case:
1918’”;
15,
thence
104 Dod
ed ‘SE
Oct.
agree with
that an
“We
the contention
north
inter-
line
where
34½
presented
the exact
issue of fact was
toas
line;
101west
by
projection of
sected
south
distance north and
the south
south between
beginning. The
place of
thence north to
survey
line of
70 and
south line of sur-
the
pleading
filed an alternative
state
upon
61, but,
vey
taking
the short-
the distance as
south-
George
of the 70
location
the
witness,
by any
one
most
est
testified
the
copied and its
This
pleading
corner.
east
from the State’s
favorable construction
opinion in
adjudicated
rehearing
in a
effect
the Stanolind
viewpoint,
excess thus
prorating
and
the
1,
Tex.Sup.,
Case,
104 S.W.2d
surveys,
resulting
intervening
between the
bringing the
hypothesis in
2. The state’s
line
no
exists
the south
between
survey)
(an office
3
suit was that
Railway
surveys
Company
and
of the T. C.
by
calls
and distance
be located
course
must
southerly
most
the Yates
the
survey
north
of
corner,
(northwest)
beginning
this con-
We reannounce
34½.
70, discarding the ad-
corner of
southwest
clusion
careful consideration
after most
lines and corners
joinder calls for western
in the
interesting
advanced
of the
theories
surveys
65, inclusive. This
river
69 to
of
of the
rehearing
light
motion for
4,912
south line
locate its
method would
bearing
evidence
thereon.
line and the south
of its north
varas south
on rehear-
“In view of
contentions
6,121
surveys)
office
(also
101-104
lines of
our
make the
that
ing
observation
3. The
line of
the north
varas south of
fact
opinion
be construed as a
would
101-104 thus located
of
south lines
finding as to the
on the
north line of
of the
lie 215 varas north
survey 70.
southeast corner of
34 n ;
vacancy sued for.
leaving the
thus
jury
issue was
submitted to the
That
El
adopted by the
Paso
theory was
con-
court and the evidence is
in the trial
court,
main
the ma-
predicated in the
simply
flicting with reference thereto. We
Case.
jority opinion in the Smith-Turner
complain in
hold
the State cannot
Supreme Court re-
court and the
The trial
proceeding
deciding
this
our action in
validity
theory,
gave
jected this
adjoinder calls
and
spring
case on
the car
basis that
lines
the west
3 for
one,
plead-
corner is the true
ings
in view its
surveys.
doing
In so
river
corners
contentions in
lower courts.”
adopted
work
Supreme Court
by
commissioner)
It -will be noted that
50.6 varas
the land
the east
(approved
Dod
surveys 61-69,
particularly
river
described area sued for
each
giving
in
inclusive,
by
43
Dod
in the
varas.
the state
Stanolind Case is co-
an excess width
61 and the
incident with
south
varas of the
southeast corner
found the
70),
(southeast
Bryant
lease. Since
corner of 69
both the state and
northeast
was unable
any original
suit,
parties
corner be-
to locate
the Stanolind
to that
an
found
excess
since the state was decreed
points. He
to take
tween these
varas,
by
suit,
points
nothing
of 387
would
calls
seem to fol-
over
between these
portion
apportioned
the nine af-
that at least as to that
among
he
low
area sued for
surveys.
original
find
in the
fected
He did not
S.tano-
70,
judicata against
but from the
res
lind Case
be
marked southeast corner
right
description of
corner
the state’s
recover
this suit.
placed
either
also seem
he
at
It would
to follow from
field note calls
George,
L.
1934,
Stanolind, “By H.
Supreme 26,
holding
above-quoted
county
Lee,
Case, predicated
Agent,”
with
Authorized
surveyor
filed
Stanolind
Court in the
county,
of.
upon the car
Pecos
appears
be
as it
May
approved
under “an Act
the- southeast
corner location of
70,
1931,”
29,
held con-
of a
the north
tract bounded on
should
that that location
3,
by
prin-
by
Tyler,
on
both
clusive in this case
by 34½,
south
doc-
the west
ciple
judicata and under
on
104.
of res
Under this application George,
“Li-
announced
decisis as
trine of stare
191,
State, 15 S.W.2d
censed
Surveyor
Angelo,
v.
Land
court in Porter
of San
Texas,”
re-
State,
prepared
error
Blaffer
31 S.W.2d
notes,
v.
field
certified
cases,
Douglas
Co.
fused in both
having
him as
been made from a
Case,
State,
S.W.2d
v.
California
“made
ground,
me on
accord-
n
by the
recently confirmed
and more
ing to law.”
in-
field
These
notes were
Royalty
Supreme
State,
Federal
Co.
Court in
“adopted”
by George,
dorsed
January
n
Case,
application to lease. The state contends state. was void tha-t because n George,by made, Gray State, it was li whom was a The Stanolind cites v. Tex. surveyor. App. censed land We sustain for authority proposition regard. pow state’s contention that article 142 the Penal in this Code does not ers, duties, obligations apply surveyors. of licensed land licensed land This we surveyors 86, chapter 2, wholly are set forth think is title immaterial. The civil stat (cid:127) expressly Particularly R.C.S. we refer to above cited articles utes relate to licensed 5272-5281, these, surveyors, and they policy inclusive. From land declare will observed, regard. surveyor licensed land the state in this a fact that a public official, prescribed required to take an oath of violation of duties is not also Commissioner, preference Land shall offense does not affect have a criminal made a sixty right days (60) pur- for civil thereafter to validity the acts in violation of the Co., chase a lease mini- mineral thereon at the State Standard Oil statutes. See v. price by Commissioner, mum fixed the Land Tex.Sup., S.W.2d 550. in addition to the other pro- consideration that, urges The Stanolind further vided herein.” parted state had with all interest The material facts are: The com- land give right land suit which would it the recognize any missioner refused to vacant possession, and therefore it could not title, application, April under the trespass maintain an action to try 1928,Tyler brought proceeding a mandamus Dayton Co., citing v. State Lumber against county surveyor, under an in- Tex. 155 S.W. and Shell Pet. terlocutory survey order in which a State, Corp. Tex.Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d stated, made. proceeding, That as above 245. These cases have here. no still pending. There great was a deal of parted had The state the never its title to with communication, verbally both let- rights, except surface or otherwise ter, Tyler between office, and the land gas oil mineral interests. which was insisting that he be award- . assigned Error is also upon over ed the land under application. his 1926 ruling plea a abatement based Finally, under eral, the Attorney advice'of Gen- pendency a previous commissioner revised his federal court at against El Paso the state’s ruling vacancy,” of “no Ty- authorized lessees under the mineral leases. The state ler survey by Baker, have a made a li- suit, party was not and could not surveyor. censed land In his instructions party consent, be made without its Baker, the commissioner forth set given. it has never deprived It could not be made, boundaries of the to be giving right litigate of its its title in a forum the as the east line of 104 “when choice, of its filing own suit in East line is measuring determined another forum. 7,600 varas eastward along the south line Since arewe remanding gen- County the cause of Runnels 3, School land erally, it is necessary us to consider corner, from its southwest as established assignments predicated upon the trial court’s Dod, R. marked S. for the northeast action in overruling motions for continu- Survey No. 104.” said *7 ance. according instructions, was made to these patent accepted and was issued to and Tyler and wife separately have appealed May 24, 1934, Tyler covering strip 114 upon assignments urging error in not (24.41 acres) varas wide between the area awarding Tyler to a lease the area in and Baker declined to show suit covered the Dogie and Cardinal leases. 34½. 104, adjoinder ground to on that he assignments These predicated upon are placed the southwest of 3 proposition farther Tyler that was the discoverer of However, the Dod than monument. through application his of in- the commissioner declined to extend the field quiry (and proceedings surveys and there- Tyler notes of the farther west 114 than the under) 15, 1926, made December under Rev. 34½, varas west of patent and was issued 1925, 5323, St. erence’right art. which gave him pref- accepted and with the area delineated. thus to lease act of -1931 24, (January 1934), In the meantime Hogan (Gen.Laws Leg., chapter 271, 452, 42d p. applied survey had for a and lease under Vernon’s per- Ann.Civ.St. 5421c), art. the 1931 covering strip act part 19-vara which, 454, 8, tinent p. section Ver- Tyler, eventuating Dogie west of the 5421c, 8, non’s Ann.Civ.St. art. reads: § 12, 1935, April lease “Any. following after the person unsurveyed who discovers an steps Original taken: had been field notes area of school land which has not been 1934; 31, January filed corrected field notes listed on the records of the Land Office 18, 1935; January final field land, filed notes school is not in actual and conflict on county surveyor’s 11, April in filed office ground previously ap- with land sold or 12, 1935, April and in the land office 1935. propriated appears and which on the official conveyances passed lease mesne to map unsurveyed land, may This Land Office Company. The Cardinal leases apply county surveyor writing to and 19, 1934, upon appli- executed March surveyed, were same after the field have the notes thereof have been returned to the and filed, respectively, 4 cations November unnecessary approved 1934. It is to recite the va- Land filed with Officeand 706 clearly open discovery by any one who up the consummation steps leading rious may any ap- care file to make an lease. Tyler did not leases. “discover,” abstract, The word while in under the 1931 plication or lease majr meaning, have a well-defined neverthe- language, 1935. act until March less, many like other words our sup- Tylers two contentions make may vary meaning as to accordance port assignments: of their Generally with its it means contextual use. to-Tyler acceptance patent sur- 1. The hid, to uncover which was or discover that Tyler’s claim vey 1 did not exhaust concealed, hid conceal- or unknown. But or survey. application for under the 1926 ed ? In the ab- from or unknown to whom Tyler was the discoverer of the stract, perhaps, every not neces- one. But through his and was there- sarily every inso situation. lease under the 1931 fore entitled to a act. discovery alluded 1931 act clearly discovery by we think means the clearly nega The first contention is “any person” commissioner, by to the land Yates, holding in Miller v. tived means of an to lease under the 435, 61 and Holmes v. Tex. Yates, S.W.2d requisite appli- act. It is not that the Tex. S.W.2d 771. possessor cant be the sole of the information accepts that when one holding is to the effect based, which the nor that field he patent *8 unavailing, and he relegated was to what land office arose from the fact that rights ever might have, he independently regarded the commissioner had never application. of his 1926 Nor does the fact part public a of the domain. If he so re- that the suit was not dismissed alter the it; it, garded duty his would be to so -list situation. any request inor event to suit Attor- Tylers’ As to the second contention: This ney General have it so decreed. predicated upon is the construction of the act, underlying policy to the effect that The dis- vacancy individuals, coverer of brings encourage private who the matter act was to expense, attention the land bring to the entitled to a at their own commissioner is into the preference right lease, properly belong re- school fund mineral lands gardless the time when he applica- ing makes the fund which had not theretofore interpret Ty- As we tion under act. been as such. listed The benefits brief, discovery lers’ can be but one there enured to the one who statute discovered listed, vacancy. but one discoverer of a We that the land was not so and made interpret language application compliance so act. with the do statute. discovery think, “unsurveyed is, only practical an area we of This con which has not land been listed on of the statute which would school records the struction effec Any purpose. of the land office as school land.” other construction tuate its listed, as the land is so long As it is lead to interminable confusion. lations, regarding analysis the area our The situation Supreme opinion Court’s presents striking illustration. The Case, suit in the Stanolind im- plicit from uncovering calculations, of the existence is “absolute- ly Dod, inception whose immaterial.” had its in the work of In this connection it is urged by reports office became records 'the land state that we were in error year concluding (1) In Yates between 1917and 1920. that the decision Supreme purchase all the va Court in filed an the Stanolind Case was based adjudication T. C. Rail an cant area and south of the that the south- way surveys. might In a sense Yates be east corner of 70 is hot farther north than vacancy. regarded However, corner; as the discoverer car spring (2) that the 34)4 accepted patent Supreme he adopted Dod. Court the work of ground which fixed his boundaries on the by appellant calculations referred to and excluded the thereby area in suit. He predicated upon are work Dod abandoned claim to area outside of his finding per of an excess of 43 varas patent thereby precluded calls. He was not sections, section in the nine river 61-69. making application, another but he It Supreme is clear to us that the Court’s Tyler not do so. did is in same situa predi- decision in the Stanolind Case is .True, independent survey tion. he had an cated adjudication, in an so far- as made, predi but his 1926 concerned, case that the south line extent, least, upon cated to some at the of 70 is not than car farther north work of Dod. pur towas corner; adoption and also chase under ex article Supreme method em- pressly repealed by appli the 1931act. This ployed by Dod, is, prorating the excess patent Tyler cation terminated in the course, among the nine river sections. Of rights No. 1. All ap- under
_ the 1926 if Dod’s was inaccurate as to the plication acceptance merged were and concluded points distance between found two patent. of that He could not by (southeast him 61), 70 and southeast thereafter make-another under (increase diminish) this would affect article 5323 repealed. because had been the width of each of the involved river being The area in still unlisted in the sections. As we understand the Stano- office, subject “any it was to lease opinion, lind the asserted 215-vara person” (including Tyler) making applica- between 101-104 and 34½ tion and otherwise complying with upon the difference between the called the 1931statute. ap- did make such of 3+101 east lines and the actual location plication however, meantime, March 1935. In the of the north line of 34½. rights applicants for the 2,15 words, In other exactly Dogie and Cardinal areas had attached. coincides with a 43-vara excess in the clearly, think, they And superior west lines surveys, of the five river 65-69 Tyler. to those of (43x5=215). The holding of Supreme portions Those of the trial judg- court’s Court that the calls in the east line of 3 denying ment applications the lease Ty- for the west lines and corners of the river ler and Stanolind are affirmed. In other surveys necessarily adjudicates the south respects, the trial court’s is re- line of No. 3 beginning at a versed and the cause remanded. varas south of the south line of 65. Con- sequently, part Affirmed the true location part and in of 65 was de- reversed and remanded. terminative of the issue involved in the *9 line, however, Stanolind Case. Since this On Motions for was not located on the and had Rehearing. to prorating be fixed the excess between The motion asserts that our statement Dod, points the two found the true that, “the west line of the lease is necessarily location of 65 south line 7600 varas east of the west line of 3 lo- as dependent upon the location of the south cated from Dod’s monumented S. W. cor- lines of both 70 and 61. If the excess 3,” ner of 70 and N. W. corner of not is between per in those lines is fact 43 varas supported the evidence. We have care- section, and 70 is located at the car fully re-examined matter and this adhere corner, spring necessarily then the south to the statement as written. line of 101-104 is coincident with the It urged is further regardless 34 n . that If north line the excess of between . in figures inaccuracies greater and calcu- 70 south and 61 south is than 43 carefully spring App., 225 section, car S.W. 1115. We have per the varas 70, the examined an correctly south these cases. The doctrine locates south corner grounded of the nounced in seems well fall these cases would south line of 101-104 34 n , eliminating jurisprudence. predicated upon in our It is line thus north doctrine, hand, pro- however,, equitable estoppel. this vacancy. If, That other per regard applicable pres we do not than 43 as is less rated excess section, correctly 101-104 ent case. We believe we have then the south 34½, analyzed line of original fall of the north the transaction our north so, must vacancy opinion. It holding correctly would be created. If our fol and a that,the the held in mind lows. be a upon predicated, Stanolind Case In an curiae motion filed amicus verdict, a directed jury upon finding, but attorneys representing pend in other clients ad- necessarily Supreme and the Court cases, ing objection portion is made to the vacancy judicated a nonexistence of the opinion original reading: our “The dis the Su- That between 101-104 and 34½. covery to alluded in the 1931 act we think upon preme decision its fact based Cour.t clearly discovery by ‘any person’ means the purposes of that that for the holding commissioner, by to means the land of an case, pleadings application to lease under the 1931 act.” true state, was the corner car is that language being It stated is clear. we think corner of southeast holding party construed as wlm opinion, However, original stated in our as application files purchase for first purpose it seems have been to priority office land is entitled to over one adjudication no Supreme to make application had for who made earlier its of the location to corner or survey but had not filed his to particular for than northing, other purchase quoted until later. The language Dis- in that case. purpose of its decision hold, was not intended so nor do we think binding effect of decision claimer of the fairly suscéptible is of that construction. express. For litigation was other under, The consideration was whether adjudication as reason, we made no party who first discovered the existence position south line or either priority of a re- was entitled to left such southeast gardless his'application of the date of un- open question as a of fact. location thought der the 1931 act. The embodied by the seems to the conclusion reached quotation rights party is Goitrt, predicated upon Supreme the evi- under the act are fixed means of com- dence, pleadings distinguished from the pliance pur- the act. An with As stated in our in the Stanolind Casei is, course, pre- chase essential. As opinion, question of original thereto, necessary. requisite its extent in so as this case vel non and far applicaton The for constitutes the solely depends upon the true is concerned step first under the act no doubt fixes the southeast corner of location of rights applicant in so far finding deter- We made and make no fact time is concerned. Failure or refusal minative of that issue. up with follow for printed argument, support In a purchase would defeat such Bryant appellants motions of any rights appli- the accrual of wife, that the insisted action of Stano- survey. for effect unreason- cation applying purchase lind in the involved delay filing applica- able .laches land and its the state as vacant purchase question tion to with which ail elec various acts thereunder constituted not here concerned. are We think thereby rights, between inconsistent tion opinion, read in the language of estoppel creating an title under assert adjudication, presented light of the facts alleged true and inconsistent sufficiently expresses holding. our following cases, east line of 104. The question pointed amicus curiae out support cited in of this contention.: are us, consequent- motion was before Guy, 114 Tex. Seamans Co. v. ly adjudicated. *10 473; Id., 115 Tex. 276 S.W. S.W. Except original opinion in so far as Flesher, 424; Clemenger Tex.Civ.App., v. above, or modified the several is corrected 304; Jaffray, Bauman v. Tex. 185 S.W. motions are overruled. 260; Civ.App. v. Produc S.W. Stine 126; Co., Tex.Civ.App., original opinion, made in ers’ Oil S.W. Corrections Boatner, Ins. Tex. Civ. motions Providence Co. overruled. under corrected notes loses acquire he be the first to information. that right all to additional area embraced in Nor do we informa- think source of such notes, prior Tyler field distinguish seeks to important, except, perhaps tion in- in a case cases, his situation from that in the cited subject volving breach faith fraud —a on pending he had It with which we are not here concerned. rights, establish his which suit not re only requisite that the land be not listed quired to be dismissed the land commis on the records of the land office as school precedent sioner as a condition of to issuance land, applicant conform patent, pending. but was still And fur (cid:127)statutory requirements. If the land com- ther he continued insist that was he missioner conclude from should entitled to more land was embraced in than made under the that the land patent. clearly These facts do not dis belonged to the school fund and otherwise tinguish principle. cases The land act, duty within came approve Tyler’s commissioner refused to appraise the value of the mineral title and prior notes, required field a further If make the lease. he should conclude oth- survey and field notes corrected in accord erwise, deny application, appli- ance therewith. accepted patent em rights adjudicated in cant could have his bodying these corrected notes, field the courts. In applicant either event the thereby rights terminated his under his 1926 party would be the “who discovered” the application. protests His to the effect that “unsurveyed area” within the meaning of he was entitled to more land clearly the 1931 act. That was not listed