White v. Smith case brief

 White v. Smith, Supreme Ct of Texas, 1948

1. Land gets partitioned but not the asphalt which is held in undivided interest. White becomes owner and continues mining. Other children say stop mining or else account the profits derived from mining. White argues that he hasn’t taken more than his share.
2. Holding – Can not partition asphalt because it is not of all the same value, quality and quantity of rock varied significantly over the land
   1. Required White to account to his co-owner according to their interests for the profits after deducting expenses
   2. White is responsible to his co-tenants for activities which depleted natural resources from the land
   3. Can’t select the 1/9^th because he effectively picked the best spot for himself
   4. Fair to give a cut of profits because he has deprived others from opportunity to mine themselves