Echolustee Oil Co. v. Johnston

• Decision Date: 17 November 1931
• Docket Number: 20384.
• Citation: 3 P.2d 227,153 Okla. 92,1931 OK 709
• Parties: ECHOLUSTEE OIL CO. v. JOHNSTON et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

3 P.2d 227

153 Okla. 92, 1931 OK 709

ECHOLUSTEE OIL CO. v. JOHNSTON et al.

No. 20384.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

November 17, 1931

Syllabus by the Court.

The only reference to the mineral reservation in the deed is in the exception in the warranty clause and is as follows "Except valid agricultural and oil and gas leases and 1919 taxes and except an undivided one-fourth interest in and to the oil and gas and other minerals in and under said land the right to enter, prospect for and remove said minerals and that they will warrant and forever defend the same unto said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, against said parties of the first part, their heirs and assigns, and all and every person or persons whomsoever, lawfully claiming or to claim the same." The deed conveys a fee-simple title to the premises and contains no words reserving an undivided one-fourth interest in the minerals to the grantor. Held, that the language is not to be construed as reserving the minerals to the grantor, but as excepting them from the covenant of warranty.

Appeal from District Court, Okfuskee County; John L. Norman, Judge.

Action by the Echolustee Oil Company against William G. Johnston and others. Judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

A. M Beets and O. K. Wetzel, both of Oklahoma City, and A. Francis Porta, of El Reno, for plaintiff in error.

Martin L. Frerichs, of Okemah, for defendants in error.

HEFNER J.

Plaintiff in error claims to be the owner 0f the mineral rights in and to the land involved in this action. The trial court decided against its claim.

It appears that on and prior to the 15th day of June, 1920, Harry H. Rogers and W. H. Dill owned the land in fee and on that date conveyed the premises by warranty deed to J. E. Carr. It is contended that in the deed of conveyance they reserved an undivided one-fourth interest in the minerals. Carr thereafter conveyed all the mineral rights to D. Replogle. Plaintiff in error thereafter acquired all the mineral rights by conveyance through him. The question for our determination is, "Did Rogers and Dill in their deed to Carr reserve a one-fourth undivided interest in the minerals?" There is no reservation in the granting clause of the deed, nor do we discover any such reservation in any portion thereof. There appears in the warranty clause of the deed the following exception: "And said first parties, their heirs, executors or administrators, do hereby covenant, * * * that the same are free, clear and discharged and unincumbered of and from all former and other grants, titles, charges, estates, judgments, taxes, assessments and encumbrances, of whatsoever nature and kind, except valid agricultural and oil and gas leases and 1919 taxes and except an undivided one-fourth interest in and to the oil and gas and other minerals in and under said land and the right to enter, prospect for and remove said minerals, and that they will warrant and forever defend the same unto said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, against said parties of the first part, their heirs and assigns, and all and every person or persons whomsoever, lawfully claiming or to claim the same. * * *"

Defendants in error contend that this exception amounts to a reservation of the minerals....