Breckenridge v. Coffield

• Decision Date: 31 March 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 7529.)
• Citation: 283 S.W. 310
• Parties: BRECKENRIDGE v. COFFIELD.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

283 S.W. 310

BRECKENRIDGE v. COFFIELD.

(No. 7529.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 31, 1926.

Appeal from District Court, Webb County; J. F. Mullally, Judge.

Action by N. B. Breckenridge against H. E. Coffield, in which J. C. Martin, as temporary guardian of the estate of William Breckenridge, a minor, and others, intervened, and named intervener set up action of trespass to try title, and in which plaintiff dismissed his suit and later intervened as defendant. From a judgment, N. B. Breckenridge appeals. Affirmed.

Gordon Gibson and John S. Morris, both of Laredo, for appellant.

S. T. Phelps, Thos. H. Ward, Hicks, Hicks, Dickson & Bobbitt, and R. D. Wright, all of Laredo, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

This is an action to obtain a partition of two tracts of land, brought by appellant against appellee, the appellant being a resident of Merida, state of Yucatan, Republic of Mexico, and appellee a resident of the state of Oklahoma. Appellant claimed one-half of the land. Appellee answered that while the legal record title of a portion of the land was in him, in fact he had no interest in the land, but is holding the same as naked trustee for A. W. Breckenridge, and he suggested that said Breckenridge was a necessary party and prayed that he be made a party. J. C. Martin, as temporary guardian of the estate of the minor William Breckenridge, intervened and claimed the whole of the two tracts as the property of his ward, and set up an action of trespass to try title, and filed an affidavit to the effect that appellant, H. E. Coffield, and A. W. Breckenridge held their claim under a deed dated June 18, 1913, which purports to have been executed by Mabel Breckenridge, conveying to Alexander W. Breckenridge an undivided three-fourths interest in the land, and alleged that such deed was a forgery. A. W. Breckenridge answered claiming one-half of the land sued for. Marshall Hicks, an attorney for Martin, filed an affidavit to the effect that he believed that the deed by Mabel Z. Breckenridge to Alexander W. Breckenridge was a forgery. In February, 1925, N. B. Breckenridge, who appears in this court as appellant, dismissed his suit, and the court so ordered. J. C. Martin asked that the Mirando independent school district of Webb county be made a party, alleging that said district was claiming an interest in the land N. B. Breckenridge intervened as a defendant, reaffirming his claim to one-half of the land. The Witherspoon Oil Company came into the suit and filed a general denial and plea of not guilty. Some 14 other parties filed pleas in the case, the pleadings covering 71 pages of the transcript. Twenty-four pages of the transcript are consumed in entering a judgment purporting to be based on the answer of the jury to one question as to whether the deed of Mabel Z. Breckenridge to A. W. Breckenridge was a forgery. The jury answered that it was a forgery. We adopt the statement of appellee J. C. Martin, guardian of the estate of the minor, William Breckenridge, as to the contents of the voluminous and complicated judgment:

"That the Magnolia Petroleum Company was entitled to have the surface of survey No. 2161 set aside to it by virtue of an equitable partition which resulted from the sale of this specific survey to it, because A. W. Breckenridge owned good title to an undivided one-third interest in said three surveys; that the various oil companies and parties producing oil under the original Sauvignet lease had expended more in the cost of production than the value of the oil produced; that of the royalties received by H. E. Coffield, A. W. Breckenridge, and N. B. Breckenridge, the minor was entitled to recover two-thirds thereof, and A. W. Breckenridge was entitled to one-third of such royalties; that the two-thirds of the royalties which the minor was entitled to recover should be charged with the life estate of N. B. Breckenridge in one-third thereof, which entitled the said N. B. Breckenridge to have interest for his life upon one-third of the royalties received by the minor; and a trustee was appointed to place at interest one-third of the minor's royalties so as to insure the account to N. B. Breckenridge of the revenue from one-third of such royalties. The court decided that the total royalties derived from production of oil and gas amounted to $20,842.80, and that N. B. Breckenridge, by reason of his life estate in one-third in said two surveys, was entitled to the use of only one-third thereof, which one-third is the sum of $6,947.60; but the court further found, upon the admission made in open court by N. B. Breckenridge, and the other evidence adduced, that he had received and appropriated $8,915.80 derived from oil and gas on said two surveys, and that therefore N. B. Breckenridge is indebted to the estate of the minor in the sum of $1,968.20 (the difference between $6,947.60 and $8,915.80); and the court further decided that N. B. Breckenridge is indebted to said minor's estate in the sum of $6,947.60, which should be paid into the registry of the court, which sum is a part of the corpus of said minor's estate, subject to the life estate of the said N. B. Breckenridge therein. The court also decided that N. B. Breckenridge was entitled to a life estate in one-third of said two surveys Nos. 460 and 771, and that the minor was entitled to these two surveys burdened with said life estate. The court further decided that A. W. Breckenridge and his trustee, H. E. Coffield (the amount received by H. E. Coffield being considered as having been received by A. W. Breckenridge), had received revenues as royalties from oil in the sum of $13,044.91, two-thirds of which amount so received amounts to $8,696.61, but that A. W. Breckenridge paid out in discharging vendor's liens, taxes, and interest on the common estate, the sum of $21,649.33, two-thirds of which sum amounted to $14,432.89, leaving a sum of $5,736.28 which the minor's estate could have been charged with in favor of the said A. W. Breckenridge; but the said A. W. Breckenridge in open court waived any indebtedness which the minor might be owing to him, and the judgment recites that A. W. Breckenridge take nothing of the minor's estate on this account.

"The court confirmed certain assignments held under the Sauvignet lease, being those which the minor elected he would confirm."

No one complains of the judgment except the appellant, N. B. Breckenridge. The judgment gave the minor William Breckenridge two-thirds of the land as against all the parties involved in the suit and in all the oil, gas, and minerals in survey 2161, with the exception of a life estate of N. B. Breckenridge in the two surveys, 460 and 771, which he inherited from his deceased wife, Mabel Z. Breckenridge; but it was further ordered that as N. B. Breckenridge obtained his life interest after oil was discovered on the two tracts of land, he should receive only interest on one-third of the royalties to be derived from the production and sale of oil and gas on said two tracts. It was also adjudged that the minor recover of N. B. Breckenridge the sum of $1,968.20, and also the sum of $6,947.80, and that all sums due or to become due to said N. B. Breckenridge from his life estate be paid to the estate of the minor until the said sums of $1,968.20 and $6,947.60 shall have been fully paid. N. B. Breckenridge alone appealed from the judgment.

The record shows that two-thirds of the land in controversy was the property of Mrs. Mabel Z. Breckenridge, and that her only son had inherited the same subject to a one-third life estate in N. B. Breckenridge. Mabel Z. Breckenridge, who was the daughter of Alexander W. Breckenridge, was married to N. B. Breckenridge, who was not related to her although bearing the same name, on June 19, 1912, and died on April 6, 1913, leaving surviving her a son, the said William Breckenridge, and her husband, N. B. Breckenridge, the father of said minor. Appellant swore in a deposition taken from him that he had caused a Mexican boy to forge the name of his wife, Mabel Z. Breckenridge, to a deed which purported to convey the land in controversy to her father, Alexander W. Breckenridge. This was done a...