Moseley v. Hearrell
Supreme Court of Texas
171 S.W.2d 337 (1943)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
R.N. Wood owned a mineral interest subject to the limitation that a maximum of one well could be drilled on the land. Wood conveyed a 49/128 interest in his mineral estate to Lola Hearrell (defendant). Later, Wood conveyed the rest of his mineral interest to J.A.R. Moseley, Jr. (plaintiff). Moseley brought suit seeking partition of the mineral estate. A Texas statute stated that any joint owner of a mineral interest can compel partition of the interest. Texas law further provided that if partition in kind was impracticable, the court could order partition by sale, and split the proceeds of the sale among the joint owners. Hearrell argued that she would not be able to afford to buy back her mineral interest if the court ordered partition by sale, and that Moseley, by bringing suit, was in effect seeking to gain control of her interest. Hearrell’s argument was thus that partition would be inequitable. The trial court held that partition in kind of the interest was not possible, and ordered partition of the land by sale. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals reversed, finding that Moseley was not entitled to partition without basing such partition on equitable grounds. Moseley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alexander, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
