Harris v. Currie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 74 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““R. H. Harris conveyed to Currie and Wahlenmaier every right, title, and interest he had in this land when he conveyed to them the entire mineral estate he reserved in his deed to F. L. Harris. When we say that R. H. Harris conveyed to Currie and Wahlen-maier every right, title, and interest he had in this land, it is evident that we say that he conveyed not only his one-half mineral estate for the balance of the 15-year period above indicated, but he conveyed his right to use the surface, which was an appurtenance to his conveyed mineral estate. Under such a record, R. H. Harris had nothing left upon which to base a claim for these delay rentals. It would be unreasonable to say that R. H. Harris can collect delay rentals on the thing he has entirely parted with, when such rentals accrued after he had divested himself of such entire title. If the owner thereof sells land already rented or leased for ordinary rental or lease purposes, the purchaser thereof would certainly be entitled to the rent or lease money accruing after his purchase. We can see no reason to apply a different rule to delay rentals provided in an ‘unless’ mineral lease, accruing after the sale of the entire mineral title to the land involved.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brady v. Security Home Investment Co. · Alfrey v. Ellington

2. “The mere grant or reservation of minerals in place does not vest the grantee or reserver with any title to the surface. In spite of this, the grant or reservation of minerals carries with it, as a necessary appurtenance thereto, the right to use so much of the surface as may be necessary to enforce and enjoy the mineral estate conveyed or reserved. This is because a grant or reservation of minerals would be wholly worthless if the grantee or reserver could not enter upon the land in order to explore for and extract the minerals granted or reserved. 31 Tex.Jur. p. 559 et seq., and authorities there cited. 13 "* * * As an appurtenance to the mineral estate reserved by R. H. Harris in his deed to F. L. Harris, he, R. H. Harris, had the right to go upon this land for the purposes of exploration and development of the thing that he owned by reservation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Yates Et Ux. v. Gulf Oil Corporation

3. ““When the owner of the entire estate in land conveys it by ordinary form of deed containing no exception or reservation, his grantee acquires the same title which his grantor had, and such title includes all minerals. Hill v. Roberts, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W. 246 ; Bibb v. Nolan, Tex.Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 156 , error refused; 31 Tex.Jur., p. 547.” See also Currie v. Harris, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 404, 408 ; Schlittler v. Smith, 128 Tex. 628 , 101 S.W.2d 543, 544 ; Richardson v. Hart, 143 Tex. 392 , 185 S.W.2d 563, 565 ; Jensen v. Wilkinson, Tex.Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 982, 984 (Writ Dis.); Woods v. Sims, Tex., 273 S.W.2d 617, 621 ; 14 Tex. Jur. 930; 123 A.L.R. 848 , 849 ; 31-A Tex.Jur. 839 ; 31-A Tex.Jur. 88; Holloway’s Unknown Heirs v. Whatley, 133 Tex. 608 , 131 S.W.2d 89, 92 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alfrey v. Ellington