Clevenger v. Continental Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 19498,19498 |
| Citation | 149 Colo. 417,369 P.2d 550 |
| Parties | Mac CLEVENGER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Stinemeyer & Stinemeyer, Roger M. Breyfogle, Canon City, for plaintiff in error.
A. T. Smith, Gordon H. Mayberry, Denver, for defendant in error.
In this action we are called upon to determine the rights of the parties in and to oil and gas which may lie beneath real estate particularly described in the indenture which gives rise to the respective claims of the parties.
The question for determination is clearly presented by the instrument under which the parties claim and no good purpose would be served by a detailed statement of facts concerning which there is no dispute. We are concerned only with the legal effect of the following language contained in the instrument upon which each of the parties rely. That language is as follows:
'This Indenture, made and executed this 16th day of September A.D. 1887, between Nathaniel P. Hill of the city of Denver and State of Colorado, of the first part and The Colorado Oil Trust Company, a corporation of the state of Colorado, of the second part, Witnesseth: The party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.) lawful money of The United States to him in hand paid by the party of the second part, and other good and sufficient consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged and confessed, doth hereby grant and convey to said The Colorado Oil Trust Company, its successors and assigns, the exclusive and perpetual right to dig and bore for oil and gas in and upon the following described lands and real estate lying and being in the counties of Fremont and Pueblo and state of Colorado, to wit:
(Description of Real Estate)
'Together with the exclusive and perpetual right to remove and carry away from the said premises all oil and gas produced thereon, and in connection with the prospecting for and production of such oil and gas the party of the first part does hereby grant unto the party of the second part its successors and assigns, the right and privilege of erecting and maintaining on and removing from said premises such derricks, pumps, tanks, buildings pipes and conduits together with other machinery apparatus or improvements necessary or proper to be used in prospecting for, producing or removing oil and gas from the said premises; subject however to the following conditions:
'First: That the party of the second part its successors or assigns shall not in the construction or erection of any such buildings, machinery, pipes or other improvements on the said premises permit any lien or encumbrance to attach to any part of the said premises or any interest therein.
'Second: That no such buildings, machinery, pipes or other apparatus or improvements shall be made by the party of the second, part, its successors or assigns, upon the said premises so as to interfere with or injure any buildings or structures at any time erected upon the said premises or any part thereof by said first party his heirs or assigns.
'Third: That the grantee, its successors and assigns shall annually pay and discharge, when due and payable all taxes and assessments, assessed or levied against any or all of said lands or premises in excess of the taxes levied or assessed against other lands in said county, of a similar character and similarly improved, valuable only for agricultural and grazing purposes, and shall in like manner pay and discharge all taxes assessed against said premises on account...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. Tergeson
...exists in an instrument's reservation of oil and gas rights, the construction must favor the grantee. See Clevenger v. Cont'l Oil Co., 149 Colo. 417, 421, 369 P.2d 550, 552 (1962) ; Keith v. Kinney, 140 P.3d 141, 146 (Colo.App.2005). ¶ 16 "[T]he fact that the parties have different opinions......
-
Notch Mountain Corp. v. Elliott, 94SC325
...a severed interest, whether minerals or surface, are therefore free to separately convey their interests. See Clevenger v. Continental Oil Co., 149 Colo. 417, 369 P.2d 550 (1962); Osborne v. Holford, 575 P.2d 866, 40 Colo.App. 365, 367 (1978). Because the estates are distinct, severed miner......
-
Bill Barrett Corp. v. Lembke
...and as severed owned in fee simple." Corlett v. Cox , 138 Colo. 325, 333, 333 P.2d 619, 623 (1958) ; accord Clevenger v. Cont'l Oil Co. , 149 Colo. 417, 420, 369 P.2d 550, 551 (1962) ("Oil, gas and other mineral rights in lands may be severed and held by other than the owner of the surface,......
-
Guild Trust v. Union Pac. Land Resources Corp.
...Bostic, 199 Va. 348, 99 S.E.2d 591, 66 A.L.R.2d 971 (1957); Picard v. Richards, 366 P.2d 119, 123 (Wyo.1961); Clevenger v. Continental Oil Co., 149 Colo. 417, 369 P.2d 550 (1962); Kirby Lumber Corp. v. Claypool, 438 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.Civ. App.1969); Mauch v. Ballou, 499 P.2d 591, 593 (Wyo.197......
-
CHAPTER 10 TITLE TO SEVERED MINERALS: A MARKETING PERSPECTIVE
...Cox v. Lasley, 639 P.2d 1219 (Okla. 1981); Hartman v. Potter, 596 P.2d 653 (Utah 1979). [2] See, e.g., Clevenger v. Continental Oil Co., 149 Colo. 417, 369 P.2d 550 (1967); Hartman v. Potter, 596 P.2d 653 (Utah 1979). [3] See Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762 (1876); D. Barringer & J. Adams, Th......
-
CHAPTER 2 ACQUIRING EXPRESS RIGHTS-OF-WAY: DRAFTING CONSIDERATIONS
...86, 357 P.2d 917 (1961). [80] Farmers Reservoir & Irr. Co. v. Sun Production Co., 721 P.2d 1198 (1986); Clevenger v. Continental Oil Co., 149 Colo. 417, 369 P.2d 550 (1962); Laux v. Freed, 53 Cal.2d 512, 2 Cal.Rptr. 265, 348 P.2d 873 (1960); Boland v. Byrne, 145 S.W.2d 755. (St. Louis Ct. A......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.9 • INTERPRETATION AND OPERATION OF DEEDS
...P. 439 (Colo. 1915); Oken v. Hammer, 791 P.2d 9 (Colo. App. 1990).[473] Brown v. State, 5 Colo. 496 (1881); Clevenger v. Cont'l Oil Co., 369 P.2d 550 (Colo. 1962); Kanarado Mining & Dev. Co. v. Sutton, 539 P.2d 1325 (Colo. App. 1975); Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Sun Prod. Co., 721......
-
Chapter 8 - § 8.3 • FREEHOLD ESTATES — ESTATES IN FEE
...In re Sullivan's Estate, 218 P.2d 1064 (Colo. 1950).[90] Simson v. Langholf, 293 P.2d 302 (Colo. 1956); Clevenger v. Cont'l Oil Co., 369 P.2d 550 (Colo. 1962).[91] C.R.S. § 38-30-106 (prior to 1983 amendment).[92] C.R.S. § 38-30-106.[93] 13 Edw.i, c.1.[94] Sconce v. Neece, 268 P.2d 1102 (Co......