Bliss v. Wilcox Oil Co., 34621
| Decision Date | 01 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 34621,34621 |
| Citation | 206 Okla. 232,242 P.2d 739 |
| Parties | BLISS et al. v. WILCOX OIL CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a mineral deed, containing a general warranty of title, conveying an undivided interest in minerals, was subject to a prior, outstanding mortgage, which mortgage is subsequently foreclosed, and the grantor subsequently reacquires the title from the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, such after-acquired title will inure to the grantee in the mineral deed, or to his benefit, under the equitable doctrine of estoppel by deed.
L. Z. Lasley, Alva, for plaintiffs in error.
Horace B. Clay, Tulsa, Houts & Houts, Alva, for defendant in error.
This is an action to quiet title brought by the owners of one-half the minerals in and under described lands in Woods County, Oklahoma, against the fee owners of said lands. Plaintiffs in error were defendants in the trial court, but for convenience we shall refer to them as 'grantors'. Defendant in error will be designated as 'grantee'.
The factual situation of this case is very similar to that of Hanlon v. McLain, Okl.Supp., 242 P.2d 732, except that the question of disclaimer in the foreclosure action is not presented here. Therein we held that where a grantor had given a general warranty of title to a grantee in a mineral deed, and following the foreclosure of a prior mortgage the grantor had reacquired the title, such after acquired title inures to the benefit of the grantee in the mineral deed under the equitable doctrine of estoppel by deed.
Counsel for the parties here filed briefs amici curiae in the Hanlon case and fully presented their views in the case, as in the instant case. The rule announced in the case of Hanlon v. McLain, supra, governs our decision in the instant case, and under authority of that case and Equitable Royalty Corporation v. Hullet, Okl.Sup., 243 P.2d 986, the judgment of the trial court quieting the title in the grantees must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Born v. Bentley
...We refer to Equitable Royalty Corporation v. Hullet, Okl.Sup., 243 P.2d 986; Hanlon v. McLain, Okl.Sup., 242 P.2d 732; Bliss v. Wilcox Oil Company, Okl.Sup., 242 P.2d 739; and Triangle Oil Corp. v. Graves, Okl.Sup., 242 P.2d The facts in Equitable Royalty Corporation v. Hullet, above cited,......
-
Singer-Fleischaker Royalty Co. v. Whisenhunt
...Equitable Royalty Corp. v. Hullet, supra (206 Okl. 233, 243 P.2d 986); Hanlon v. McClain, 206 Okl. 227, 242 P.2d 732; Bliss v. Wilcox Oil Co., 206 Okl. 232, 242 P.2d 739; Triangle Royalty Corp. v. Graves, supra (206 Okl. 409, 242 P.2d 740); Born v. Bentley, 207 Okl. 21, 246 P.2d In the Born......
-
Campbell v. Butler
...Royalty Corp. v. Hullet, 206 Okl. 233, 243 P.2d 986 (1952), Hanlon v. McLain, 206 Okl. 227, 242 P.2d 732 (1952), Bliss v. Wilcox Oil Co., 206 Okl. 232, 242 P.2d 739 (1952), Triangle Royalty Corp. v. Graves, 206 Okl. 409, 242 P.2d 740 (1952), and Born v. Bentley, 207 Okl. 21, 246 P.2d 738 In......
-
Colby v. Stevenson
...See Equitable Royalty Corp. v. Hullet, 206 Okl. 233, 243 P.2d 986; Hanlon v. McClain, 206 Okl. 227, 242 P.2d 732; Bliss v. Wilcox Oil Co., 206 Okl. 232, 242 P.2d 739, and Triangle Royalty Corp. v. Graves, 206 Okl. 409, 242 P.2d In Warner v. Day, supra, protection was afforded both to a mort......