First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa v. Price

Decision Date20 February 1951
Docket NumberNo. 33650,33650
Citation228 P.2d 623,204 Okla. 243
PartiesFIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO. OF TULSA et al. v. PRICE.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. The intention of the parties to a deed must be ascertained, if possible, from its language, not as presented in particular sentences, clauses, or paragraphs, but to its effect when viewed as an entirety.

2. Where the intention of the parties is clearly expressed by an explanatory clause incorporated in the habendum clause, or in a separate clause, the latter may control over the granting clause of the deed.

Claude M. Gordon, Okmulgee, Conner, Winters, Lee & Randolph, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.

Carland Smith, Okmulgee, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

This appeal involves solely a controversy between parties defendant in a quiet title action. It comes here from an order of the trial court sustaining the demurrer of one of the defendants, Mabel H. Price, to the cross petition of other defendants, The First National Bank and Trust Co., of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Claude M. Gordon, plaintiffs in error herein.

On October 3, 1945, S. M. Forbes brought action in the District Court of Love County to quiet his title to a certain 70 acres of land, located in Love County, naming the parties to this appeal, among others, as defendants. On November 19, 1946, plaintiffs in error, The First National Bank and Trust Co., of Tulsa, Oklahoma, hereafter referred to as the Bank, and Claude M. Gordon, the attorney who handled the hereinafter described transaction for said bank, filed their answer to plaintiff's petition, alleging ownership of an undivided 1/8 interest each in the oil, gas, coal and other minerals lying in and under the 70 acres. They also filed a cross petition against defendant in error, Mabel H. Price, in which, as amended, the following facts were alleged:

That on January 23, 1941, pursuant to agreement with cross petitioner, the Bank, and in satisfaction of a judgment and claim of the Bank, Mabel H. Price purported to convey to the Bank an undivided 1/4 interest in the oil, gas, coal and other minerals in and under 200 acres of land, which included the 70 acres to which plaintiff, Forbes, seeks to quiet his title. The conveyance was as follows 'Know All Men by These Presents.

'That Mabel Price, widow and sole heir of John Price, deceased, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has quit claimed, granted, bargained, sold, conveyed and set over and does by these presents quit claim, grant, bargain, sell, convey and set over unto The First National Bank And Trust Company Of Tulsa, Oklahoma, a national banking association, its successors and assigns, an undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest in and to all of the oil, gas, coal and other minerals now or at any time hereafter lying in or under and that may be produced from the following described land situated in Love County, State of Oklahoma, to-wit: (Here follows a description of the land.) together with the right of ingress and egress at all time for the purpose of mining, drilling and exploring said lands for oil, gas and other minerals and removing the same therefrom.

'The intent of this instrument is to convey to said The First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa the above specified interest in and to all of the oil, gas, coal and other minerals in and under the above described lands which grantor herein now owns and which her deceased husband, John Price, acquired under and by virtue of the terms of a certain conveyance dated September 15, 1938, executed by Pearl T. King as Administrator to the said John Price, the same being duly filed for record on October 28, 1938, and recorded in Book--at page--of the records of Love County, Oklahoma, and is intended to convey and vest in the above named grantee all the rights and privileges acquired by the said John Price under the above described conveyance.

'In Witness Whereof, the said Mabel Price has executed this instrument this 23rd day of January, 1941.

'(Signed) Mabel Price

Mabel Price.'

That in April, 1946, it was learned for the first time that, during his lifetime, John Price, out of his 1/4 undivided interest, had conveyed an undivided 1/8 and an undivided 6/200 mineral interest in the 200 acres to other persons. That it was also learned that M. L. Huckin, brother of the defendant in error, had, in May, 1945, re-conveyed to the defendant in error legal title to another undivided 1/4 interest in the minerals in the same 200 acres, which title had been held by him since November 6, 1926, for the use and benefit of the defendant in error, with no beneficial interest of his own.

The cross petition then alleged that Mabel H. Price was estopped from denying she was seized and possessed of an undivided 1/4 interest in the minerals in and under the 200 acres at the time of executing said deed. That the Bank became the owner of an entire undivided 1/4 interest in the minerals, the after acquired title to which was bound by the above quoted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Ford v. Raab
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1987
    ...298 P.2d 407 (Okl.1956), Peppers Refining Co. v. Barklett, 208 Okl. 367, 256 P.2d 443 (1953), and First National Bank and Trust Co. of Tulsa v. Price, 204 Okl. 243, 228 P.2d 623 (1951). In cases where language in the habendum clause is held to determine the interest granted, often the haben......
  • McVey v. Hines
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1963
    ...themselves deliberately caused to be inserted therein. (In this connection, notice what we said in First National Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa v. Price, 204 Okl. 243, 228 P.2d 623, 625). To ignore it would be to close our eyes to the purpose of the modern practice of using blank spaces in deed......
  • Colonial Royalties Co. v. Keener
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1953
    ...the latter may control over the granting clause of the deed.' See other authorities cited and discussed in First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa v. Price, 204 Okl. 243, 228 P.2d 623, and the Annotations, 131 A.L.R. 1239 and 157 A.L.R. But plaintiffs contend that the intention of the parties ......
  • Atkinson v. Barr
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1967
    ...title as the grantor owned at the time of the execution of the deed (May v. Archer, Okl., 302 P.2d 768, and First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa v. Price, 204 Okl. 243, 228 P.2d 623), and does not convey a subsequently acquired title (Selsor-Badley v. Reed, 97 Okl. 204, 223 P. 651), and con......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT