Ford v. Jones
| Decision Date | 13 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 39942,39942 |
| Parties | Evon A. FORD et al. v. J. T. JONES and wife, Geneva Jones. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Welch & Gibbes, Laurel, Evon A. Ford, Taylorsville, Walker & Cox, Laurel, for appellants.
McFarland & McFarland, Bay Springs, for appellees.
The issue on this appeal is the construction of a deed to an interest in oil, gas and other minerals, which was executed on December 28, 1944, by appellees, J. T. and Geneva Jones, to appellant, Evon A. Ford. The suit was brought in the Chancery Court of Jasper County, Second Judicial District, by appellees, the Joneses, against appellants, Ford, A. F. Chisholm and Central Oil Company, the latter two claiming under subsequent conveyances from Ford. The chancery court agreed with appellees' contentions and held that the instrument hereinafter described conveyed to Ford a one-fourth royalty interest, and not a one-fourth undivided interest in the minerals in place. It also dismissed the cross bill of appellant Chisholm.
The deed is on a 'Form R-101' and is entitled 'Mineral Right and Royal Transfer (To Undivided Interest)'. Ford paid the Joneses $135 an acre, or a total price of $1,350. The deed recites a consideration of $10 and other good and valuable considerations. The granting clause conveys to grantee 'an undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals of every kind and character in, on or under that certain tract or parcel of land' as described. The form used was a printed form, but following the property description there was typed in these two paragraphs:
'It is the intention of grantors, by this instrument, to convey, and the intention of grantee to purchase an undivided ten (10) royalty acres under the ahove described lands.
'It is understood and agreed that this land is now subject to an outstanding oil, gas, and mineral lease and grantee waives the right to receive any part of the delayed drilling rentals as provided in said lease.'
The habendum clause is a usual one in a mineral deed. It recites that the grantee holds 'the said undivided interest in all of the said oil, gas and other minerals in, on or under said land, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging, with the right of ingress and egress, and possession at all times for the purpose of mining, drilling and operating for said minerals and the maintenance of facilities and means necessary or convenient for producing, treating and transporting such minerals and for housing and boarding employees, unto said grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns, forever; and grantor herein for himself and his heirs, executors and administrators hereby agrees to warrant and forever defend all and singular the said interest in said minerals, unto the said grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof.'
The grantee has the right at any time to redeem for the grantor any liens on the land, where grantor has defaulted, and to be subrogated thereto; and the conveyance is subject to any valid existing mineral lease, 'but, for the same consideration hereinabove mentioned, grantor has sold, transferred, assigned and conveyed and by these presents does sell, transfer, assign and convey unto grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns, the same undivided interest (as the undivided interest hereinabove conveyed in the oil, gas and other minerals in said land) in all the rights, rentals, royalties and other benefits accruing or to accrue under said lease or leases from the above described land; to have and to hold unto grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns.' The instrument was filed for record on January 1, 1945, four days after its execution. This suit was brought by appellees on June 18, 1954.
We have concluded that the instrument conveyed to the grantee an undivided one-fourth interest in the minerals in place. This included a fractional interest in the reversionary fee estate in the minerals in place, the rights to receive rents and royalties under mineral leases, subject to the exception in the deed as to rentals under the then existing lease to Graham, and the rights to participate in execution of new mineral leases and to receive a proportionate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins
...in Thornhill, 523 So.2d at 983. "Moreover, such instruments are ['ordinarily'] regarded as unambiguous." Id.; see also Ford v. Jones, 226 Miss. 716, 85 So.2d 215 (1956); Gulf Refining Co. v. Harrison, 201 Miss. 294, 28 So.2d 221, 30 So.2d 44, sugg. of error overruled, 201 Miss. 294, 335, 30......
-
Thornhill v. System Fuels, Inc.
...or delay rentals, or both, as to any oil and gas lease. Mounger v. Pittman, 235 Miss. 85, 108 So.2d 565 (1959), infra. Ford v. Jones, 226 Miss. 716, 85 So.2d 215 (1956); Westbrook v. Ball, 222 Miss. 788, 77 So.2d 274 Another type of mineral interest ownership is a royalty interest. This int......
-
Whittington v. Whittington, 07-CA-59434
...in this jurisdiction is that the instruments should be read as a whole. Lackey v. Corley, 295 So.2d 762 (Miss.1974); Ford v. Jones, 226 Miss. 716, 85 So.2d 215 (1956); Texas Gulf Producing Co. v. Griffith, 218 Miss. 109, 65 So.2d 834 (1953). Where the instruments' substance is clear the int......
-
Rogers v. Morgan, 43097
...the instrument. See Goff v. Avent, 122 Miss. 86, 84 So. 134; Gulf & S. I. R. Company v. Patten, 180 Miss. 756, 178 So. 468; Ford v. Jones, 226 Miss. 716, 85 So.2d 215. We believe, the rule of construction, that where two clauses of the deed are repugnant, the first must prevail, and that an......