STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED FIGUEROA, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The surface owner is entitled to one half of the condemnation proceeds for a negative easement, even without present mineral title.
The state condemned a negative easement on land where Figueroa owned the surface and Texas owned the minerals. Figueroa was awarded half the condemnat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Condemnation Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court awarding to Figueroa, the owner of the surface estate, one half the compensation paid by the United States in a condemnation proceeding for the acquisition of a negative easement. The remaining one half was awarded to the state of Texas, the owner of the mineral estate in the lands which were the subject of the condemnation proceedings.
Here, Figueroa owned only the surface, but, under the Texas Relinquishment Act, the surface owner in a tract as to which the state owns the minerals, has the right, as agent for the state, to lease the minerals in return for which he receives one half the proceeds of the sale of oil and gas. When, as here, the surface is taken away from the prior owner thereof, by condemnation, he loses whatever interest he would have had as owner of the surface in making such lease for the state’s mineral estate, and thus is deprived of something of value, even though he does not have any present title in any of the minerals. This seems to be the basis of the trial court’s decision, in which the court relied upon the Texas case of Schooler v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W. 2d 664.
Although the state of Texas attacks the Schooler decision as not being a decision by the Texas Supreme Court, we conclude that it is an expression of the highest Texas court on the point of law here involved and consider that it is, therefore, binding on the federal courts. See State of California v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 553, 77 S.Ct. 1037, 1 L.Ed.2d 1034; National Surety Corporation v. Bellah, 5 Cir., 245 F. 2d 936.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Humphrey v. The C.G. Jung Educ. Ctr. OF Houston, 714 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1983)
Authorities Cited
- California v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1957)
- Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Mrs. Ollie Bellah, 245 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1957)