Copeland v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1955
• Docket Number: No. 6802,6802
• Citation: Copeland v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 279 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. Ct. App. 1955)
• Parties: J. L. COPELAND et ux., Appellants, v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS COMPANY et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Civil Court of Appeals

Page 893

279 S.W.2d 893

J. L. COPELAND et ux., Appellants, v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 6802.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

May 12, 1955.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1955.

Cornelius & Cornelius, Jefferson, for appellants.

Bruce R. Merrill, Ward T. Jones, Houston, C. C. Renfro, Dallas, Blalock & Peteet, Edward L. Peteet, Marshall, Garrett & Garrett, Rufus S. Garrett, Ft. Worth, Spruiell, Lowry, Potter & Lasater, Oran Lowry, Tyler, Turner, Rodgers, Winn, Scurlock & Terry, C. Sidney McClain, Dallas, for appellees.

FANNING, Justice.

This suit was brought by J. L. Copeland and wife, as plaintiffs, in statutory form of trespass to try title to an undivided 3/4 mineral interest in and under a 100.11-acre tract of land in the S. F. Sparks Survey in Harrison County, Texas, against Stanolind Oil & Gas Company, Continental Oil Company U-Tex Oil Company, Toklan Production Company, Roklan Royalty Company, J. G. Catlett, The J. G. Catlett Company, Inc., Carl E. Krog, Carl E. Krog, Trustee, R. D. Goodrich, G. A. Ritnour, Mrs. Lou T. Foster, Harold Foster, Frank Haynes, Individually and as Guardian of the Estate of James R. Haynes, and numerous other individual and corporate defendants. The named defendants filed their respective answers consisting in each instance of at least a statutory plea of 'Not Guilty,' and in some instances of additional pleas of general denial and the two- and four-year statutes of limitation, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. arts. 5526, 5527.

Prior to the date of the trial, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for an interlocutory judgment against the parties-defendant who had been properly served but who had not filed answers.

The trial was before the court without a jury. At the close of appellants' testimony, and prior to the introduction of any evidence by defendants, certain of the defendants moved the court for judgment, and this motion for judgment was granted in favor of all of the parties-defendant, except those against whom the interlocutory default judgment was taken and those defendants not served who had been severed from the cause. Based on the granting of the motion for judgment, the court entered its judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing by their suit against the answering parties-defendant, hereinafter referred to as appellees, and making final its said interlocutory judgment by default as against the parties-defendant who were served but did not answer. Subsequently the court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellants filed objections to various findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court and also filed a request for various findings of fact which request was denied by the trial court. J. L. Copeland and wife had appealed.

Appellants introduced in evidence (among other instruments) various warranty deeds and other written instruments which reveal the following: On December 30, 1921, T. D. Rowell conveyed the land in issue to Richard Hawkins for a cash consideration of $500, and four vendor's lien notes each in the amount of $300, such conveyance reserving a vendor's lien.

On February 28, 1925, Hawkins borrowed $700 from the Federal Land Bank, paying the same over to Rowell, who, in turn, assigned $65 of vendor's lien note No. 2, and all of vendor's lien notes Nos. 3 and 4, along with his superior title to the Federal Land Bank. On the same day Hawkins executed a deed of trust on the land in issue to the benefit of the Federal Land Bank.

On January 1, 1927, Hawkins executed two notes each in the amount of $241.19, the first of which was due January 1, 1928, and the second on January 1, 1929. These notes were in renewal and extension of all principal and interest then due by Hawkins to Rowell on all previous notes. On the same day Hawkins executed an instrument extending Rowell's vendor's lien, but making such lien subject and inferior to the lien of the Federal Land Bank.

On October 24, 1930, Hawkins conveyed 1/2 of the minerals under the land in issue to J. R. Meeker. On January 10, 1931, Hawkins conveyed 1/4 of the minerals under the land in issue to W. D. Wells. (Note: The two mineral deeds from Hawkins to Meeker and Wells, above referred to, were introduced in evidence by appellants' attorney with the statement as follows: 'Your Honor, we have those two instruments here that we are offering for the limited purpose of showing common source of title and showing the nature of defendants' claim only.')

On June 23, 1933, Hawkins conveyed said land by warranty deed to Rowell. We quote from said deed as follows:

'* * * for and in consideration of the sum of five dollars to me in hand paid by T. D. Rowell Sr the receipt of which is acknowledged, and confessed, and the additional consideration as follows: That I am justly due the said T. D. Rowell as part purchase price of said land two notes in the sum of $241.19 each dated January 1st 1927, due as stated in my deed, which two said notes I have been unable to pay.

'In Addition to said two notes I have procured from the Federal Land Bank of Houston, a loan on the said land, the payments on which have regularly been paid by the said T. D. Rowell Sr as part consideration for this transfer from me to the Federal Land Bank of Houston. In Full discharge of the said two Vendors Lien notes and the assumption of debt due by me to said Federal Land Bank of Houston, I am making this transfer to the said T. D. Rowell Sr. The cash consideration and valuation of said land being $500.00.'

On December 14, 1942, Rowell conveyed the land in issue to J. L. Copeland, appellant herein, plaintiff below, for a consideration of $100 cash, a note in the amount of $360.82, and the assumption of $532.18 still owing on the debt of Hawkins to the Federal Land Bank which Rowell had assumed when Hawkins reconveyed to Rowell. We quote from said deed as follows:

'It is understood in this conveyance by the grantor and grantee, that all taxes have already have been paid or must be paid by the grantor herein, both State and County to Jan. 1st. 1943. It is stated also as a fact there have been certain mineral conveyances to a part of the minerals in and under this land, and the grantor accepts this conveyance subject to all mineral conveyances now in force and effect on said land, and it is estimated that there has been approximately three fourths of the minerals in and under this land heretofore conveyed. It is also agreed that as to the grantor herein there are no mineral reservations retained by said grantor, and it is the purpose of this deed to convey to the grantee herein all minerals in and under said land, which has not been heretofore legally conveyed.'

On May 24, 1945, the Federal Land Bank released its deed of trust on the lands in issue.

Oral evidence was further adduced on the trial of the cause of the following facts: On October 15, 1949, Copeland executed an oil and gas lease to Stanolind Oil & Gas Company, the draft to cover a full mineral interest being refused by Stanolind, and Copeland accepting in lieu thereof a draft covering a 1/4 mineral interest. Subsequent to the last above date, Copeland has accepted delay rentals and royalties based upon a 1/4 mineral interest.

We quote from the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court as follows:

'Findings of Fact

'1. Plaintiffs, J. L. Copeland and wife, Mildred Maudeline Copeland, did not introduce an unbroken chain of title from the sovereignty of the soil into J. L. Copeland.

'2. Plaintiffs did not connect all of the defendants who were served, and who answered with pleas of 'Not Guilty,' to the asserted common source of title, T. D. Rowell.

'3. Plaintiffs did not establish in their favor in their attempt to prove prior possession of the undivided 3/4 mineral interest, which interest is the subject of this controversy, that they had possession of the said mineral interest prior to the dates of the deeds from Richard Hawkins to J. R. Meeker and W. D. Wells, under whom defendants claim.

'4. Plaintiffs did not plead, that they had acquired title by limitation to the undivided 3/4 mineral interest conveyed by Richard Hawkins to J. R. Meeker and W. D. Wells in and under the subject tract and all of the proof that was introduced to that effect was objected to by defendants at the trial.

'5. On December 30, 1921, T. D. Rowell conveyed the 100.11 acre tract of land in the S. F. Sparks Survey, Harrison County, Texas, which is the tract in controversy in this cause, to Richard Hawkins by warranty Deed. Part of the consideration for this conveyance was the execution of four vendor's lien notes, each in the amount of $300.00, and a vendor's lien was expressly retained in the deed in favor of T. D. Rowell.

'6. On February 28, 1925, T. D. Rowell assigned to the Federal Land Bank of Houston all of the above Notes 3 and 4 and $65.00 of Note 2; and, in addition, transferred to the bank the 'superior title' to the subject tract of land.

'7. On the same date, February 28, 1925, Richard Hawkins executed a Deed of Trust to said Federal Land Bank to secure payment of a Federal Land Bank note of $700.00.

'8. On January 1, 1927, Richard Hawkins executed an extension agreement extending the time for payment of said Notes 1 and 2 so that Note 1 would be due on January 1, 1928 and Note 2 would be due on January 1, 1929.

'9. On October 24, 1930, Richard Hawkins conveyed an undivided 1/2 mineral interest in the subject land to J. R. Meeker.

'10. On January 10, 1931, Richard Hawkins conveyed an undivided 1/4 mineral interest in the subject land to W. D. Wells.

'11. The 'superior title' to the land still reposed in the Federal Land Bank of Houston on June 23, 1933.

'12. On June 23, 1933, Richard Hawkins purported to convey the subject tract of land back to T. D. Rowell. The consideration recited in this conveyance included a cash consideration as well as cancellation of two notes and T. D. Rowell's assumption of the indebtedness due on...