From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
Thomas Gilcrease Foundation v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.
Supreme Court of Texas
266 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. 1954)
First National Bank of Forth Worth (Bank) owned the entire mineral estate on the northeast quarter of a tract of land and one-half of the mineral estate on the northwest quarter. In 1929, the Thomas Gilcrease Foundation (Gilcrease) (plaintiff) acquired an undivided three-fourths mineral interest in the northeast quarter, and an undivided one-fourth mineral interest in the northwest quarter. In 1946, the Bank executed an oil and gas lease with Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. (Stanolind) (defendant) covering the Bank’s remaining mineral interests. One month later, Gilcrease executed a similar lease with Stanolind, a major difference being that in the Gilcrease lease, Stanolind included an entirety clause: “If the leased premises are now or shall hereafter be owned in severalty or in separate tracts, the premises, nevertheless, shall be developed and operated as one lease, and all royalties accruing hereunder shall be treated as an entirety and shall be divided among and paid to such separate owners in the proportion that the acreage owned by each such separate owner bears to the entire leased acreage.” Development of the northwest quarter turned out to be much more productive than the northeast quarter. This meant that Gilcrease owned a three-fourths mineral interest in the less productive quarter, and a one-fourth mineral interest in the more productive quarter. Gilcrease brought suit against Stanolind, seeking royalty payments based on its overall ownership of the entire tract of land (i.e., one-half). Stanolind argued that Gilcrease was entitled to only three-fourths of the royalty on the less productive northeast quarter and one-fourth of the royalty on the more productive northwest quarter. The trial court granted Gilcrease summary judgment based on the entirety clause in the lease. The Texas Civil Court of Appeals reversed. Gilcrease appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Culver, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.