Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Doyle
| Decision Date | 20 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 152,152 |
| Parties | STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. et al. v. DOYLE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Turner, Rodgers & Winn and Frank J. Scurlock, all of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff Stanolind.
Bromberg, Leftwich, Carrington & Gowan, of Dallas, Tex., for Atlantic Refining Co. and J. K. Wadley.
Thompson, Knight, Harris, Wright & Weisberg, of Dallas, Tex., for defendants.
The suit is for 2.71 acres of land in Gregg County, Texas, which is said to be oil territory and to have considerable value.
Two of the three plaintiffs are cotenants. They are not joined together in any other manner, except that they claim that the trespasses and wrongs of the defendants are common against each of the plaintiffs, and they join in the action as permitted by Rules 19 and 20, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
Each of the plaintiffs is a non-resident of Texas. The Stanolind is a corporation under the laws of Delaware, the Atlantic Refining Company a corporation under the laws of Pennsylvania, and J. K. Wadley is a resident of the state of Arkansas. The defendants reside in Dallas County, Texas.
The plaintiffs plead that on April 28, 1930, Arthur Christian and wife, Eliza Christian, Jack G. Leak and W. C. Hurst, executed and delivered to B. A. Skipper an oil and gas lease to 107 acres of land, more or less, in Gregg County, Texas. That said instrument provided that:
It is alleged that plaintiff Stanolind became the owner of an undivided one-half interest in so far "as it covers approximately 20 acres located in the north part thereof." That plaintiffs Wadley and Atlantic owned an undivided one-half interest of said 107 acres, more or less, "in so far as it covers approximately 31 acres located immediately south of the 20 acres referred to in paragraph 3," which is that of Stanolind. "The south line of the approximate 20-acre tract is coincident with the north boundary line of the approximate 31-acre tract."
The plaintiffs then set out metes and bounds of a strip of land of 2.71 acres, of which they allege that "the common boundary line between the 20-acre tract * * * and the 31-acre tract * * * approximately bisects the alleged strip of 2.71 acres."
They claim they have been in actual possession of all of said land, including the 2.71 acres, continuously since 1931.
That the defendants do not own any right, title or interest in the said 2.71-acre tract, yet they continue to assert title to the oil and gas under the same. That they are threatening to trespass upon the property.
They ask for a quieting of their title, removal of clouds, and adjudication that the defendants have no right to said tract, and that they be enjoined from trespassing thereon.
The defendants admit the ownership as alleged by the plaintiffs, but deny the ownership of "approximately 20 acres located in the north part of said survey," or, of approximately 31 acres located immediately south of the 20 acres. They deny that the south line of the 20-acre tract is coincident with the north boundary line of the 31-acre tract, or, that the common boundary line between the two said tracts, "approximately bisects the alleged strip of 2.71 acres."
They admit that they are asserting title to the 2.71-acre tract.
In a cross-action they allege ownership of the 2.71 acres. In the beginning of the description of the tract, out of which they claim ownership of the 2.71 acres, they allege that the Henry Hathaway survey contains "109.71 acres, more or less."
Both parties, by their pleading, place the 2.71-acre tract in the transfer made on April 28, 1930, under which the plaintiffs claim.
The defendant pleads a description for that original transfer of 109.71 acres. The plaintiffs plead that original description of 107 acres. Doubtless, the difference between the two descriptions gives rise to the 2.71 acres.
The defendants make no allegations that there has ever been transferred to them this "109.71 acres," or any part of it.
Furthermore, the language used in the transfer as pleaded by the plaintiffs, and apparently left unpleaded by the defendants, is clearly a valid "more or less" transfer, which would carry more.
After the use of the words, "more or less," the grantor sets out the fact that the tract which was thought to have 100 acres, more or less, and which came from J. M. Farmer, was found, upon survey, to have 107 acres, more or less. In each instance, the tract seems to have been meted and bounded. In addition to that, is the phrase, to-wit, "It is our intention to convey all the lands we own by this transfer," meaning whether 100 acres, 107 acres, or more or less than either of those amounts.
Each places the 2.71 acres within the original Farmer, and later, the April 28, 1930, transfer to Skipper.
The case was filed on February 16, 1940. On May 1, 1941, Judge Bryant of the eastern district, before whom the case had been pending, and who had made several preliminary orders, concluded that he ought not to go further, and asked me to take charge of it.
Upon going over the file, I discovered that there was a motion for summary judgment on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial