Altman v. Blake

• Decision Date: 30 January 1986
• Docket Number: No. 07-84-0272-CV,07-84-0272-CV
• Citation: 703 S.W.2d 420
• Parties: Hazel ALTMAN, et al., Appellants, v. W.R. BLAKE, III, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 420

703 S.W.2d 420

Hazel ALTMAN, et al., Appellants, v. W.R. BLAKE, III, et al., Appellees.

No. 07-84-0272-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Amarillo.

Jan. 30, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1986.

Gerald Huffaker, Huffaker, Green & Huffaker, Tahoka, for appellants.

Donald M. Hunt, Carr, Evans, Fouts & Hunt, Lubbock, for appellees.

Before REYNOLDS, C.J., and COUNTISS and BOYD, JJ.

REYNOLDS, Chief Justice.

The question presented in this summary judgment action is whether the language used in two deeds effected a conveyance of an undivided one-sixteenth ( 1/16) royalty interest or an undivided one-sixteenth ( 1/16) of all the oil, gas and other minerals. Considering opposing motions for summary judgment on stipulated material facts, the trial court determined, and rendered judgment decreeing, that the deeds conveyed an undivided one-sixteenth ( 1/16) nonparticipating royalty interest. Concluding that the trial court correctly construed the deeds, we affirm.

The stipulated facts establish that on 30 May 1938, W.R. Blake, Jr., as owner-grantor, executed a deed which, as recorded, recites that he does convey to W.R. Blake, Sr., as grantee,

an undivided One Sixteenth ( 1/16) interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under and that may be produced from the following described lands, situated in Hockley County, State of Texas, to-wit:

All that certain tract or parcel of land being, all of Labors Fifteen and Sixteen (15 and 16) of League Two (2), Jones County School Land, Hockley County, Texas.

But does not participate in any rentals or leases containing 348 acres, more or less, together with the rights of ingress and egress at all times for the purpose of mining, drilling, exploring, operating and developing said lands, for oil, gas and other minerals, and storing, handling, transporting and marketing the same therefrom with the right to remove from said land all of Grantee's property and improvements.

Thereafter on 14 January 1939, W.R. Blake, Jr. and his wife conveyed the above-described land to D.A. Clark, "save and except one-sixteenth ( 1/16) of the mineral, non-participating, which has previously been sold."

Subsequently, plaintiff-appellants Hazel Altman, Duncan B. Clark and Ellen Dixon Clark, stipulated to be the inheritors of the interest of D.A. Clark in the land and premises, initiated this action for a determination of interest in and to the oil, gas and other minerals in, on and under the above-described land. Although they named the defendants to be W.R. Blake, Jr. and Jack Blake Beady, their action was answered by W.R. Blake III and Jaqueline Blake Beatty, who were stipulated to be the successors in title to the interest conveyed to W.R. Blake, Sr.

By their action, plaintiff-appellants sought to establish that they own fifteen-sixteenths ( 15/16) of the one-eighth ( 1/8) royalty, and that defendant-appellees own one-sixteenth ( 1/16) of the one-eighth ( 1/8) royalty, that may become due and owing under any oil, gas or other mineral leases covering the land and premises. In answering the action, defendant-appellees asserted their ownership of an undivided one-half ( 1/2) interest of all oil, gas and other mineral royalties, including the one-eighth ( 1/8) royalty payable under a lease now existing as to said minerals.

Later, plaintiff-appellants and defendant-appellees filed their respective motions for summary judgment, stipulated the material facts, and submitted the construction of the deeds to the trial court. The court construed the 1938 deed to convey to W.R. Blake, Sr., and the 1939 deed to reserve to W.R. Blake, Sr. and those claiming under him, "a one-sixteenth non-participating royalty interest" in the minerals in the land, and rendered summary judgment accordingly.

By four points of error, appellants present their central contention that the court erroneously construed the deeds in decreeing a conveyance-reservation of one-sixteenth ( 1/16) nonparticipating royalty interest, and submit an interpretation for a conveyance-reservation of one-sixteenth ( 1/16) of the minerals. Appellees reply with a counterpoint and propose an interpretation to justify the court's judgment. However, we will not explicate the differing interpretations; instead, we will employ a format of construction dictated by controlling principles of law that, explicitly or implicitly, responds to the respective interpretations of the litigants.

At the outset, we mention that the owner of minerals may convey, or reserve in his conveyance, all or any part of his interest in the minerals, Schlittler v. Smith, 128 Tex. 628, 101 S.W.2d 543, 544 (1937),...