Bass v. Harper
| Citation | 437 S.W.2d 648 |
| Decision Date | 22 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 16967,16967 |
| Parties | Thomas E. BASS, Appellant, v. Lucille HARPER et al., Appellees. . Fort Worth |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Henderson, Bryant & Wolfe, and William R. Bryant, Sherman, for appellant.
O. R. Tipps, Wichita Falls, for appellee Lucille Harper.
Duncan W. Holt, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., for appellee Sinclair Refining Co.
The plaintiff, Thomas E. Bass, brought suit in the District Court of Cooke County against Lucille Harper and Sinclair Refining Company, in which he requested the court to decree in a declaratory judgment that Lucille Harper was owner of only 1/14th interest in the royalty in a described tract of 90 acres of land.
In answer defendant claimed, under deeds, she was owner of 2/7ths of the royalty interest.
In a non-jury trial the court found defendant to be owner of an undivided 2/7ths of 1/8th royalty in the 90 acre tract.
On appeal plaintiff contends, (1) the court erred in construing a certain deed as conveying an undivided 2/7ths royalty interest, (2) the court erred in finding a deed from Bass to Miller was ambiguous, and (3) if the deed was ambiguous the court erred in finding it was intended by the parties to the above to convey one-half royalty interest owned by Bass.
The parties stipulated that on July 3, 1957, Thomas E. Bass was the owner of all the surface, all of the executive or leasing rights, and 8/14ths of the royalty in the land involved.
Previous owners had reserved 6/14ths of the royalty prior to the time Bass acquired the land.
On July 3, 1957, Bass executed a warranty deed to W. O. Miller.
This deed conveyed to W. O. Miller 'All that certain undivided one-half interest in and to the following described tract * * * 90 acres of land * * * (described by metes and bounds). Following the description was the following: 'This grant is subject to the Mineral Reservation contained in the following Deed. * * *' (As heretofore set out the parties stipulated that 6/14ths interest was reserved in previous owners.)
The same language as above was used in a deed executed by W. O. Miller on October 13, 1958, in which Miller deeded an undivided on-fourth interest in the property to Paul E. Miller.
On July 19, 1963, W.O. and Paul E. Miller executed a warranty deed to Lucille Harper conveying an undivided one-half interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under (the 90 acres). No mention was made of prior royalty interest in the minerals, but did convey one-half interest in all royalties and rentals provided for in future leases.
Extensive findings of fact were filed by the trial judge. Included were findings that, (8) at all times involved W. O. Miller was a resident of New Mexico and Arizona as a rancher and farmer; (10) in 1960 Bass and the Millers, as lessors, executed a lease to Sinclair Refining Company covering the 90 acre tract for a 5 year term, and were paid separately, they executed the lease separately, and they equally divided the consideration received for this lease. No mention was made in the lease as to royalties owned by any lessor . This lease expired without production obtained; (12) a producing well was drilled in 1966, Sinclair connected with the well and has been purchasing the oil therefrom; (13) Sinclair's division order credited Lucille Harper with 2/7ths of a 1/8th royalty. Mrs. Harper executed the division order and received through November, 1967, the sum of $3,004.24; (14) Bass could have prepared a deed from himself to W. O. Miller reserving 7/14ths of the royalty to himself and passing only 1/14th of the royalty to Miller, had he desired to be specific in the amount of royalty conveyed by the deed from Bass to Miller.
Plaintiff objects to the findings of fact in only a couple of minor details.
The court's Conclusions of Law were: (1) The Bass to Miller deed conveyed an undivided 1/2 interest in the 90 acres as owned by Bass at the date of the deed, including 1/2 of the surface, 1/2 of the mineral leasing rights and 1/2 of an 8/14th royalty interest; (2) the 'Subject to' clause in the deed from Bass to Miller is effective in protecting Bass under his general warranty; (3) the 'Subject to' clause can not be enlarged to include a royalty reservation of 7/14ths in Bass and conveying only 1/14th to Miller in the warranty deed since no such express provision was written into the deed. Other conclusions were to the effect that the deed must be construed to pass the greatest estate; 'Mineral Reservation' in Bass-Miller deed must be construed to mean 'Royalty Reservation,' since no mineral rights, in the legal sense, were reserved by prior owners; (6) Bass did convey to Miller 1/2 of the royalty interest owned by him at the time of the conveyance; (7) if the interest conveyed in the Bass-Miller deed is not clear it should be construed against the grantor as passing the greatest estate possible in the absence of a clear unequivocal reservation in favor of the grantor and against the grantee.
Plaintiff strongly disagrees with the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bass v. Harper, B--1296
...of 1/8th of the royalty. The Court of Civil Appeals at Fort Worth considered that the instrument was not ambiguous, and it affirmed. 437 S.W.2d 648. We reverse and here direct the entry of judgment by the trial court that the instrument granted and conveyed a 1/14th of the 1/8th The facts a......