Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Autwmiw ii. TEXAN WILL WIJBON A-l-rORNEY G~NERAX. May 10, 1957

Honorable 0. B. Ellis Q@neral Manager Texas Prison Systerfi Huntsville, Texas Opinion No. WW-120

Re: Whether or not Humble Oil ar.d Refining Company has authority or right to lay additional lines acrosa the easement granted by two ease- ment deeds: 1, dated April 7, 1928, recorded in Vol.743, page 526, Deed Records of Harris County, Texas, and 2, dated April 7, 1928, recorded In Vol. 119, page 372, Deed Records of Fort Bend County, Texas o

Dear Sir:

Your request for ol;:r oNr:fon dated April 24, 1957, presented the fo?lowing qiiestion:

srA question has developed as to the legality and vagueness of two easernext deeds to .the Hunibie Gil and Refining Corr,pany. The deeds were dated Apri; '7, :?928, recorded in Vol 0 ~$3~ on page 526 in the records of Harris County, and dated Aprli~ 7, ig28, recorded in Vol o 119 on page 372 in the Records of Port Bend County.

"We respectfully reques,t an official opinion from you as .to whether the Humble 011 and Refining Company has au'thori,ty or the 1-i ht to lay additfonal lines on thfs grant. 6

The deeds to which you refer were executed In 1928 by the Texas Prison Board signed 'by R. H, Baker as Chairman,

Hmorable 0. B. Ellis, ‘page 2 (W-120)

with the Humble Pipeline Company being named as grantee. They provide for the laying of one pipe line across certain prison lands, with an option to iay additional lines alongside the first ‘upon the payment, by ,the grantee, of like consideration for each pipe line so laid,

The Legisia,cu,re in Ac,ts,1943, 48th. Leg.,’ p. 281, ch. 177, Sections 1 and 2, amended Article 6203d, V.C.S., to provide, for ,the firs t tirre, authority for the Texas Prison Board, by and with the -onsent of the Governor and the Attor- ney Generai of Texas, to make easement grants for pipelines crossing prison lands. This Act, however, does not purport to be retrospecti.ve in operation and,therefore, cannot be’ considered as aiding GT^ valida,ting ,the grant fn question.

Even If the Hurribie Pipeline Company had the right to cross all public l~ands 'by ,vir,tue of the holding In Hu.mble ;‘;eiine Co. v. State, 2 S.W,2d 1~0~8 (Civ.App,,l928, writ the ‘Texas l?isor: Board nad no a,uthorlty to execute the SubjeEt gra:nts and s:;eh grants were not effective for any pur- pose 0

It is well s&t;ied in ,tnis State that persons deal- ing with officials of ,&hi;; state a’re charged with notice Of exterit of auk‘no-lYt,y si:,h ofiir.ia:s ha:re, and may not hold the Sta,te liab:s 03 cori,t.:r:~ cts made ~d.~Cho~.~~tail,thority ,, State v. Bagland Clinis-‘Hosui”s--, :,x8 TerO 393: ,159 S.W.2d 105; Nichols , , 9 1:. c. A, 327,. 32 s.W. ti,52. v. State

BY Assls~:w,t