Amoco Production Co. v. US, 85-2530

• Decision Date: 02 August 1988
• Docket Number: 85-2531.,No. 85-2530,85-2530
• Citation: 852 F.2d 1581
• Parties: AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Flying Diamond Oil Corporation, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

852 F.2d 1581

AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees Flying Diamond Oil Corporation, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 85-2530, 85-2531.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

August 2, 1988.

William J. Cayias of Cayias, Livingston and Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants-appellants Eugene Newton, Edna Elliott Newton, Roy Jacobson, Ann N. Jacobson and Newton Sheep Co., and John W. Horsley (Joseph J. Palmer and Royal I. Hansen with him on the briefs) of Moyle & Draper, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendant-appellant Bow Valley Petroleum Inc.

Claron C. Spencer of Beesley, Spencer & Fairclough, Salt Lake City, Utah (Robert C. Grable of Kelly, Appleman, Hart & Hallman, for Bass Enterprises Production Co., Fort Worth, Tex., with him on the brief), for defendant-appellee Bass Enterprises Production Co.

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

This case involves the interpretation of a deed that conveys a one-half mineral interest in specified lands.

In 1972, Hyrum J. Newton & Sons Sheep Company (the Newtons) conveyed "an undivided ½ interest in and to all the oil, gas and other minerals" (except coal) in approximately 9,316 acres of land in Summit County, Utah, to Bass Enterprises Production Company (Bass). In 1976, approximately 358 acres of the Summit County land became involved in a quiet title action brought by Amoco Production Company (Amoco), a lessee of the mineral rights for the 358 acres, against the United States, which claimed a one-half interest in the mineral rights. Because the Newtons and Bass both claimed an interest in the mineral rights, they were also named as defendants in Amoco's quiet title suit.

At trial, the district court divided the quiet title suit into two branches; the first to resolve whether the United States acquired a one-half mineral interest in the land from a reservation clause alleged to have been in the original deed which conveyed title to the Newtons' predecessor; and, second, to determine the effect of the Newtons' 1972 deed to Bass (Bass deed).

After hearing evidence in the first branch of the suit, the district court ruled that the original deed to the Newtons' predecessor contained a reservation clause. Thus the court quieted title in the United States for one-half of the minerals in the 358 acres of land. Amoco appealed the district court ruling quieting title in the United States to this court, and that appeal is the subject of our opinion in Amoco Production Co. v. United States, 852 F.2d 1574 (10th Cir.1988) (Amoco II) which is filed simultaneously with this opinion.

In the second branch of the trial, the Newtons first asserted that the trial court erred in the first branch...