Askins v. British-American Oil Producing Co.
| Decision Date | 15 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | 32833. |
| Parties | ASKINS v. BRITISH-AMERICAN OIL PRODUCING CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Lucius Babcock, Judge.
Action by Otto Askins against the British-American Oil Producing Company, for an accounting and to recover the value of oil and gas allegedly produced by defendant from portions of streets and alleys claimed by plaintiff. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Upon the vacation of a street or alley the land to the center thereof attaches to and becomes a part of adjoining lots and blocks. 11 O.S. 1941 § 659. Thereafter a conveyance of all minerals under such lots carries with it the minerals to the center of such vacated street or alley, unless from the terms of the mineral deed or conveyance a contrary intent clearly appears.
2. A description of land by reference to a map, plat, or field notes is of greater force than, and controls over, a call for the area or quantity of land conveyed.
3. Where a judgment might have been based upon either of two or more grounds, but the specific ground is not pointed out, the judgment will not be disturbed upon appeal if the evidence supports it on either ground.
Gerald Spencer and Albert D. Lynn, both of Oklahoma City (Dudley Duvall & Dudley, of Oklahoma City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
D. A Richardson and Earl Pruet, both of Oklahoma City (Richardson Shartel, Cochran & Pruet, of Oklahoma City, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Plaintiff, Otto Askins, claiming to be the owner of mineral interests in certain vacated streets in Oklahoma City, brought this action against the British-American Oil Producing Company, lessee of the blocks adjacent to the streets above referred to, for an accounting and to recover the value of oil and gas which he alleges was produced by defendant from those portions of the streets and alleys claimed by him. Defendant in its answer denied generally the allegations of the petition, admitted its ownership of the oil and gas lease on the blocks in question, and that it had drilled three wells on said blocks; alleged that the portion of the streets and alleys claimed by plaintiff was not included in its oil and gas lease or in the permits it obtained from the city to drill said wells; alleged that plaintiff had no interest in or title to that portion of the streets and alleys claimed by him, and further alleged that plaintiff had been guilty of laches. The case was tried to the court without a jury and judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
There seems to be little, if any, controversy as to essential facts. From the record it appears that defendant's lease for oil and gas covering the three blocks in controversy was taken in 1932, and that subsequently in 1936 defendant obtained permits for the drilling of wells for oil and gas upon the blocks, drilled thereon, and has since been producing oil and gas therefrom; that neither the lease itself nor the permits issued by the city for the drilling of wells in terms covered the streets and alleys in and around the three blocks. Part of the streets and alleys in controversy were vacated by ordinances of the city passed February 18, 1936, and August 6, 1940, the ordinances providing that the city could at any time reopen the streets. During the year 1936 plaintiff, by several conveyances, acquired title to the mineral interests under certain lots in the three blocks covered by defendant's lease, and immediately transferred these interests by mineral deeds, part of the deeds being made to Franco American Securities Ltd., and some of them being made to Second Interstate Royalties Corporation Ltd. The deeds conveying these mineral interests to plaintiff described the property conveyed by lots and blocks. In each of the conveyances made by plaintiff to the above named grantees he also described the property by lots and blocks, but included a small strip of land, seven or eight feet wide, adjoining the lot or lots conveyed. He also inserted in each conveyance made by him, immediately following the description of the property, statements of the amount of square feet of royalty conveyed. While these statements varied to some extent, a copy of one of them is sufficient, we think, to show the manner in which the area conveyed was specified. In the deed to Franco American Securities Ltd., dated June 18, 1936, the statement reads as follows:
'(It is the intnntion of this mineral deed to convey a total of 10,500 square feet of royalty or three lots containing 3500 square feet each.) containing 10,500 sq. ft. more or less, together with the right 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.'
The words 'more or less' in the above quotation, and that part of the quotation following, are a part of the printed form of the deed.
The deeds conveying the mineral interests to plaintiff and his deeds conveying them to the two grantees above named were duly filed with defendant, and in a letter to Franco American Securities Ltd., dated August 28, 1936, defendant advised that company that its leases excluded the streets and alleys in computing the square foot area of the lots and blocks covered by its leases, and that royalty was payable in proportion to the square foot area of the total block exclusive of streets and alleys, but that the ultimate result would be the same whether the streets and alleys were included or excluded. It stated that the manner in which the Franco American deeds were drawn would result in more square foot area being recited in the deeds than...
To continue reading
Request your trial