Donnell v. Otts
Decision Date | 12 March 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 9525.) |
Citation | 230 S.W. 864 |
Parties | DONNELL et al. v. OTTS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; W. R. Ely, Judge.
Consolidated suit by Mrs. John Otts and others against G. L. Donnell and others. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Arnold & Arnold, of Graham, and W. J. Oxford and John Hancock, both of Thurber, for appellants.
M. D. Brown, of New Castle, S. C. Padelford, of Fort Worth, and M. L. Arnington, of Granbury, for appellees.
This is a consolidated suit in which the appellees are claiming the mineral rights in a survey of 160 acres of land in Stephens county, as heirs of D. H. Pruitt, Sr. The survey was patented by the state of Texas to D. H. Pruitt, Sr., on the 10th day of January, 1883. On March 14, 1888, D. H. Pruitt, joined by his wife, Lucinda Pruitt, for a recited consideration of $125, duly executed and delivered to Robert L. Pruitt, their son, a general warranty deed conveying the 160 acres of land so patented. The deed, however, contained the following exception or reservation:
"But it is agreed upon and stipulated by and between all parties that I, D. H. Pruitt, Sr., do reserve and hold all minerals of all and any kind (except stone coal) that may be on the aforesaid land for my own use and benefit."
Thereafter, on December 29, 1891, R. L. Pruitt executed and delivered to his brother, M. V. Pruitt, a general warranty deed without exception or reservation, conveying the land so patented and so conveyed to him by his father, D. H. Pruitt, Sr. By mesne conveyances from and under M. V. Pruitt, all without exception or reservation of any kind, the land appears to have been finally acquired by G. L. Donnell, who, joined by his wife, on August 19, 1916, executed and delivered to the appellant Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company an oil and gas lease in the ordinary form, under which the said company and the Sun Company, an assignee, are now claiming.
D. H. Pruitt, Sr., died between the years 1890 and 1894, and his wife died in March, 1899. A consideration of the record makes it evident that the court below proceeded upon the theory that the exception or reservation in the deed from D. H. Pruitt, Sr., to his son, R. L. Pruitt, had the effect of wholly withdrawing from the operation of the conveyance the oil and minerals in the land, and that therefore, upon the death of D. H. Pruitt, Sr., in 1893, the mineral interest so excepted from the operation of the deed passed by inheritance to his heirs, the appellees in this case.
The contentions of appellants are that the provision referred to is not an exception, but a mere personal reservation or license in favor of the said D. H. Pruitt, Sr. which ended at his death, and that hence the right to the minerals in the land set forth passed by estoppel to the vendees of R. L. Pruitt and M. V. Pruitt by virtue of their general warranty deeds. These contentions present material questions for our determination.
We will restate the provision in the deed of D. H. Pruitt, Sr., upon which the questions depend. It is:
"But it is agreed upon and stipulated by and between all parties that I, D. H. Pruitt, Sr., do reserve and hold all minerals of all and any kind (except stone coal) that may be on the aforesaid land for my own use and benefit."
In 7 Words and Phrases, p. 6140, under the title of "Reservation," it is said:
"A reservation is a clause in a deed creating or reserving something out of the thing granted that was not in existence before" — citing numerous authorities.
Again it is said:
"A reservation in a deed is something created out of the granted premises by force and effect of the reservation itself, as an easement out of land granted, or rent out of premises devised."
It is further said:
Numerous other definitions of the term "reservation" are given in the authorities cited, but those quoted are sufficient, we think, for our purposes.
The term "exception," as used in grants or contracts, has been frequently defined. In 3 Words and Phrases, p. 2538 et seq., the following is given:
"An `exception,' as the term is used with reference to contracts, is the taking some part of the subject-matter of the contract out of it."
Again:
"An exception in a deed or other instrument is something existing before as a part of the thing granted, and which is excepted from the operation of the conveyance."
The definitions quoted fairly present the view of the great weight of decided cases. See 8 R. C. L. p. 1089, § 147, and following; 2 Devlin on Deeds, § 979 et seq. In the latter authority, in section 980, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martel v. Hall Oil Co.
... ... Snyder, ... (Wyo.) 212 P. 762; Carothers v. Mills, 233 S.W ... 155. It may be reserved in a deed to the land; Donnell v ... Otts, 230 S.W. 864. Two estates thus severable are ... distinct; the size, quantity or value of the estate does not ... affect recovery ... ...
-
Southland Royalty Co. v. Pan American Petro. Corp.
...and in the above-described land'. Luse v. Parmer, 221 S.W. 1031 (Tex.Civ.App.), error refused, which involved the identical deed. Donnell v. Otts, 230 S.W. 864 (Tex.Civ.App.), no writ history, which involved a reservation of 'all minerals of all and any kind (except stone coal).' Elliott v.......
-
Anderson & Kerr Drilling Co. v. Bruhlmeyer
...clearly intended to affect oil and gas or other minerals beneath the surface but using the words "on the land" see Donnell v. Otts, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S. W. 864; Way v. Venus, Tex.Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d 467; Kentucky Diamond Mining & Developing Co. v. Kentucky Transvaal Diamond Co., 141 Ky. 97,......
-
Elkins v. Townsend
...is something existing before as a part of the thing granted, and which is excepted from the operation of the conveyance. Donnell v. Otts (Tex.Civ. App.) 230 S.W. 864; Stanton vs. T. L. Herbert & Sons, 141 Tenn. 440, 211 S.W. 353; 8 Ruling Case Law, § 146 par. "To express it differently, a `......