Breidenthal v. Grooms
| Decision Date | 20 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | 21192. |
| Parties | BREIDENTHAL v. GROOMS et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The intention of the parties to a deed must be ascertained, if possible, from its language, not as presented in particular sentences, clauses, or paragraphs, but to its effect when viewed as an entirety.
2. Where the intention of the parties is clearly expressed by an explanatory clause incorporated in the habendum clause, or in a separate clause, the latter may control over the granting clause of the deed.
Appeal from District Court, Grady County; Will Linn, Judge.
Action by Willard J. Breidenthal against J. T. Grooms and others. Judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Barefoot & Carmichael, of Chickasha, for plaintiff in error.
D. M Cavaness, of Chickasha, for defendants in error.
The parties hereto are in the same relation as in the trial court.
On February 20, 1922, one John Blott was the owner of the land involved in this action, being 100 acres more or less in section 12, township 3 N, range 6 W, in Grady county. On that date Blott executed a mineral deed to defendants J. T Grooms, I. K. Grooms, H. A. Furst, W. L. Brittain, and J. A Brown, conveying an undivided one-sixteenth interest in and to all the oil, petroleum, gas, coal, asphalt, and all other minerals in and under, or that might be produced from, said land. The consideration expressed in the deed was $500. This deed was placed of record, appearing in Book 180, p. 495, of the records in the office of the county clerk.
Thereafter on August 26, 1922, Blott executed another mineral deed to the same parties covering an undivided one-half interest in all such minerals, etc., in the same land. In each of said deeds J. T. and I. K. Grooms together received the same interest as each of the other three grantees. The consideration in the second deed was stated as $500. This deed was recorded September 25, 1922.
On February 8, 1923, J. T. and I. K. Grooms, H. A. Furst, W. L Brittain, and J. A. Brown, the grantees in the deeds above referred to, executed to Blott, the grantor in said mineral deeds, a quitclaim deed covering said lands, which, after naming the parties, grantors and grantee, and reciting a consideration of $1, reads: Then follows this clause: "The intention of this instrument is to release and quit claim all and any rights acquired by the grantors herein in and to all rights, title and interest they have by virtue of a mineral grant recorded in book 180, page 495, in the office of the county clerk of Grady County, Oklahoma."
This deed was recorded February 9, 1923. On February 12, 1924, said John Blott executed to plaintiff, Willard J. Breidenthal, a warranty deed conveying the land to him subject to a mortgage of $700. This was filed for record March 22, 1924.
On August 24, 1925, H. A. Furst and wife executed a mineral grant purporting to convey to defendants A. D. Todd and A. M. Thompson an undivided one-eighth interest in the oil and gas rights in and under said land. This deed was placed of record September 1, 1925. On the 6th day of October, 1925, plaintiff commenced this action to quiet his title as against the claim of defendants.
It is the contention of plaintiff that, whatever interest defendants Grooms, Furst, Brittain, and Brown acquired in the land by virtue of the two mineral deeds, dated February 20, and August 26, 1922, was by them reconveyed to Blott by the quitclaim deed dated February 8, 1923, and that, after the execution and delivery of said quitclaim deed, Furst had no interest in the land and could not and did not convey any interest therein to defendants A. M. Thompson and A. D. Todd by the deed of August 24, 1925.
The question depends upon the construction and effect of the quitclaim deed of Grooms et al. to Blott, above referred to. Plaintiff contends that, by the plain terms of the granting clause of the quitclaim deed, all the right, title, and interest theretofore acquired by the grantors in said quitclaim deed, by virtue of the two mineral deeds theretofore executed by Blott to them, was to reconvey to Blott, notwithstanding the clause in said deed reading as follows: "The intention of this instrument is to release and quit claim all and any rights acquired by the grantors herein in and to all rights, title and interest they have by virtue of a mineral grant recorded in Book 180, p. 495, in the office of the County Clerk of Grady County, Oklahoma."
The defendants contend that the intention of the grantors and the grantee therein and particularly the grantors was to convey or release to Blott only the one-sixteenth interest theretofore acquired under the mineral grant referred to in the deed, that Grooms et al. in the original deal purchased an undivided one-half interest in the minerals and mineral rights in and under the land, and that, by the original mineral grant, it was intended to convey such interest, but by mistake only, one-half of the one-eighth "royalty interest" was conveyed by the first deed, and that the second mineral deed from Blott was obtained to correct this error, but that by the second deed a full undivided one-half interest was conveyed without reference to the one-sixteenth interest already owned by them, and that they then held by virtue of the two deeds an undivided nine-sixteenths interest, or one-sixteenth more than they had bought and paid for, and that the quitclaim deed was executed for the sole purpose of conveying back this one-sixteenth excess interest only, and that the "intention clause" was placed in the quitclaim deed for the purpose of showing and did show this intention. The trial court found and held that the defendants "did not intend to and did not as a matter of either law or fact, release their rights" acquired under the mineral deed of August 26, 1922, and rendered judgment for defendants.
Plaintiff relies largely upon a line of ca...
To continue reading
Request your trial