the transaction was a mineral lease and not a sale of minerals in place. Wood, supra. An economic interest exists where a taxpayer has “(1) ‘acquired, by investment, any interest in . , (the minerals) in place,’ and (2) secured by legal relationship ‘income derived from the extraction of . (the mineral), to which he must look for a return of his capital.’ ” C.I.R. v. Southwest Explor. Co., 350 U.S. 308, 314, 76 S.Ct. 395, 398, 100 L.Ed. 347, 353 (1956). (Emphasis added). A number of eases nationwide have dealt with this question, but as Judge Thornberry in Wood recognized, the law in this circuit is controlled by Crowell Land & Mineral Corp. v. C.I.R., 242 F.2d 864 (5 Cir.1957) (transaction found to be a sale of minerals in place); and Albritton v. C.I.R., 248 F.2d 49 (5 Cir. 1957) (<HOLDING>). Wood, of course, must now be added to this
holding that an alleged conspiracy to bring about a termination of a lease was not tortious when an alleged coconspirator could terminate the lease as a matter of contract right holding that jury should have received evidence from parties lease negotiations to determine intended meaning of term bookstore in the lease holding contract to be a mineral lease holding that the damage for tenancy at sufferance during the holdover period was the monthly rent under the lease versus the apartments fair market value because the lease contained a provision requiring lease payments beyond the lease term recognizing that the burden is on the landlord in a lease dispute to establish that the lease contract had been breached and that such breach entitled the landlord to the possession of the property in question