Chaffin v. Hall

• Decision Date: 13 February 1948
• Docket Number: No. 2633.,2633.
• Citation: 210 S.W.2d 191
• Parties: CHAFFIN et al. v. HALL et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

210 S.W.2d 191

CHAFFIN et al. v. HALL et al.

No. 2633.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

February 13, 1948.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1948.

Appeal from District Court, Fisher County; Owen Thomas, Judge.

Suit by Ellis A. Hall and others against Myrtle Chaffin and others for the partition of oil, gas and other mineral and lease rights. From an adverse judgment, Myrtle Chaffin appeals.

Affirmed.

Klett, Bean, Evans & Justice, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Wagstaff, Harwell, Wagstaff & Alvis, of Abilene, for appellee.

GRAY, Justice.

This is a partition suit appealed from the District Court of Fisher County, Texas, and only a partition of the oil, gas and other mineral and lease rights is involved. The land is Section 86, Block 1, H. & T. C. Ry. Co. land in said county. Plaintiff Ellis A. Hall is the owner of an oil and gas lease, dated July 15, 1944, covering an undivided three-fourths (3/4) of the said land. He is joined as plaintiff by Jennings B. Terrell, Sr., owner of the surface and an undivided one-fourth (1/4) of the mineral rights. Other plaintiffs, E. V. Mitchell, Riley Maxwell, Alice Cullar, joined by her husband, G. M. Cullar, Willard Kidd, Joe B. Terrell, John L. Smith and Harold W. Colbert, are owners of fractional interests in the minerals, all of the plaintiff's owning a total of an undivided three-fourths (3/4) of said minerals. The mineral interests of plaintiffs are subject to said lease held by Ellis A. Hall, which is in good standing by reason of the payment of all accrued delay rentals.

The defendant, Miss Myrtle Chaffin, is the owner of the remaining one-fourth (1/4) interest in the minerals in and under said land, subject to an oil and gas lease in favor of defendant, Joe W. Grimes, which oil and gas lease is also in good standing. Defendant, the Federal Land Bank of Houston, holds a first mortgage lien on said section of land, which debt as of May 15, 1947, amounted to $4,515.90. Plaintiffs' petition stated that they did not desire a partition among themselves, and prayed that their joint interests be set aside to them in the proportion of their ownership; that said Ellis A. Hall lease be partitioned to cover the minerals so owned by them and that it be decreed that the plaintiffs own and hold jointly said minerals under said lease; that one-fourth (1/4) of the minerals be set aside to defendant, Myrtle Chaffin, subject to said Joe W. Grimes lease. Defendants Chaffin and Grimes sought to resist any partition as prayed for by plaintiffs. The case was tried to the court without a jury, whereupon, plaintiffs were granted a judgment for partition, the court finding that the said mineral rights were susceptible of partition in kind. The court also found the various interests of the parties as set out in the petition, and appointed commissioners to make the partition, from which judgment, defendant Chaffin alone has appealed. The record includes a statement of facts.

This suit was brought under and by virtue of Article 6082, Revised Civil Statutes, which reads as follows:

"Any joint owner or claimant of any real estate or of any interest therein or of any mineral, coal, petroleum, or gas lands, whether held in fee or by lease or otherwise, may compel a partition thereof between the other joint owners or claimants thereof in the manner provided in this chapter."

That plaintiffs were joint owners and in possession, or entitled to possession, is not questioned. They pleaded their ownership and all relevant facts, which were found by the court to be as alleged. They would, therefore, seem to be in position to "compel" a partition.

"The right of a joint owner or claimant of any estate to compel a partition thereof between the joint owners or claimant `is recognized by our Statute in the broadest terms.'" 32 Tex.Jur. 160; Williamson v. McElroy, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W. 998; Morris v. Morris, 45 Tex.Civ.App. 90, 99 S.W. 872; Henderson v. Chesley, Tex.Civ. App., 273 S.W. 299, error refused.

"The right thus conferred upon the joint owner to have his interest in the common property segregated from that of the co-owner is absolute; the petitioner having alleged and the court having found all the facts necessary to entitle the plaintiff to a partition of the property, there is no authority in law to deny the partition merely because one of the joint owners is a minor and the court has concluded from the evidence that it is not to the best interest of such minor to have the property partitioned." 32 Tex.Jur. page 162, Sec. 17, citing Morris v. Morris, supra, and Olschewske v. Summerville, 43 Tex.Civ.App. 361, 95 S.W. 1.

The language of the statute is very clear and admits of no construction other than as given in the authorities cited above. Furthermore, we see no error in the judgment rendered by the trial court. Both the appellant and her lessee were before the court. Both the lease from appellant to Grimes and said undivided one-fourth mineral interest were before the court. No homestead rights were involved. No development of the land for oil and gas had been attempted. No immediate development for oil and gas was contemplated. Plaintiff Ellis A. Hall testified without contradiction that he was a geologist; that he was well acquainted with said section of land and that he had found nothing to indicate that any acre of same was more favorable from a geological standpoint for oil and gas than any other acre. Such being an undisputed fact, it was the duty of the court to assume for purpose of partition, and we presume that he did so find; that each acre contains equal amounts of minerals for the purpose of partitioning the the surface, Henderson v. Chesley et al., 116 Tex. 355, 292 S.W. 156.

There is sharp controversy between the parties as to whether appellant has a possessory right in said one-fourth mineral interest. Appellant contends that she conveyed such possessory interest to her lessee and that now she has a possessory interest only in the one-eighth royalty reserved in the lease. Appellees insist that appellant still has a possessory interest in said minerals subject to said Grimes lease. The controversy seems to be concluded by the Supreme Court case of Stephens County et al. v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 113 Tex. 160, 254 S.W. 290, 29 A.L.R. 566, which held that an oil and gas lease had the effect of vesting in the lessee the title to the minerals comprehended in the lease. We understand that to be the settled law in Texas. Therefore, defendant Grimes is the owner of said minerals and entitled to possession, even though there be the possibility of a reverter. The royalty is purely contingent. If and when production is obtained, appellant will be entitled to her royalty. Production may or may not become a reality. But as stated above, said mineral interest, including the royalty, was before the court. The judgment extended to such interest and was binding on all the parties whatever might be their possessory rights, and independent of possible production in the future or forfeiture of said oil and gas lease. Plaintiffs showed themselves entitled to have their lease and mineral interests segregated and set over to them. Transactions between appellant and her lessee did not defeat the right of plaintiffs to have partition.

"The object of partition proceedings is to enable those who own property as joint tenants or coparceners or tenants in common to end the tenancy and allot to each his part of the property, and `partition' and `cotenancy' are used by the Legislature to include all the forms of tenancy." 32 Tex. Jur. page 164, Section 18; Caldwell v. Farrier, Tex.Civ.App., 248 S.W. 425.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing

Appellant has filed a very interesting motion for rehearing in the above cause, covering substantially the same contentions made on original submission and alleging error in our holdings as to several of them, one of which is, that since appellant owned only a royalty interest in an undivided one-fourth of the minerals, which interest was nonpossessory, appellees could not compel a partition as against her. As pointed out in our original opinion, such interest was a royalty, contingent on production under a lease...