Gilbert v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
CitationGilbert v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 185 F. 102 (8th Cir. 1911)
Decision Date12 January 1911
Docket Number3,292.
PartiesGILBERT et al. v. MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. et al.

William Blake and Victor O. Johnson, for plaintiffs in error.

W. C Franklin (Clifford L. Jackson, W. R. Allen, and M. D. Green on the brief), for defendants in error.

Before VAN DEVANTER and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and CARLAND, District judge.

CARLAND District Judge.

This action was brought by plaintiffs in error to recover of defendants in error damages for the removal and conversion of oil from a strip or parcel of land 100 feet in width running across the north half of the northwest quarter of section 16 township 21, range 8 east, Indian Meridian, Pawnee county Okl. The complaint alleged that Jason A. Powell and Barbara Powell, on August 13, 1902, conveyed the above strip of land to the Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad Company for a right of way and for railroad purposes only, and as evidence of such conveyance made, executed, and delivered the following deed of conveyance:

'Warranty Deed.
'Know all men by these presents: That Jason A. Powell and Barbara A. Powell, his wife, of the county of Pawnee in the territory of Oklahoma, parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of four hundred dollars ($400.00) to said grantors in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad Company, a corporation created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the territory of Oklahoma, party of the second part, its successors, and assigns, the following described tract or parcel of land, real property and premises, situated in the county of Pawnee, territory of Oklahoma, that is to say: A strip or parcel of land one hundred feet in width, running through and across my farm on the line as now located in the north half of the northwest quarter of section 16, township 21, range 8 east, Indian Meridian, in the Outlet, Oklahoma.
'To have and to hold the premises hereby conveyed with all the right, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in any wise appertaining, unto the said Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad Company, party of the second part, its successors and assigns forever, free, clear and discharged of and from parts, charges, taxes, judgments, mortgages, and incumbrances of whatsoever nature, and the said Jason A. Powell, and Barbara A. Powell, and their heirs, executors and administrators hereby covenant to warrant and defend the title to the premises hereby conveyed against the claims of any person or party.

'In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names the 13th day of August, A.D. 1902.

Jason A. Powell. 'Barbara A. Powell.'

This deed was attached to the complaint as an exhibit. The land therein described was subsequently conveyed to the Missouri Kansas & Texas Railway Company, one of the defendants in error. There was a demurrer to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and judgment of dismissal of the action followed. The only question argued in the briefs of counsel on either side is: What was the estate conveyed by the deed above mentioned as the facts appear in the complaint? This being so, we may assume that the complaint otherwise stated a cause of action. Plaintiffs in error contend that the demurrer admits that the strip of land was conveyed for a right of way only, and hence defendants had no right to drill wells and extract oil therefrom. Defendants in error contend that the allegation of the complaint that the land was conveyed for right of way and railroad purposes only is controlled by the deed of conveyance attached to the complaint as an exhibit, and that by the deed a...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
23 cases
  • Marland v. Gillespie
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1934
    ... ... 486, 122 N.W. 439, and the discussion ... therein contained. An almost identical question was presented ... in the case of Gilbert v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 185 ... F. 102, 104, which arose in the Western District of Oklahoma, ... and was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals ... Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 5 S. W. 484, 9 Ky. Law ... Rep. 523; Coburn v. Coxeter, 51 N.H. 158; ... Gilbert v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (C. C. A. Okl.) ... 185 F. 102; Sherman v. Sherman, 23 S.D. 486, 122 ... N.W. 439; Rice v. Clear Spring Coal Co., 186 Pa. 49, ... ...
  • Coates & Hopkins Realty Co. v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1931
    ...v. Ry. Co., 122 Mo. 396; Whitehead v. Vineyard, 50 Mo. 30; Land v. Coffman, 50 Mo. 243; State ex rel. v. Davis, 314 Mo. 373; Gilbert v. Ry. Co., 185 F. 102; Kynerd Hulen, 5 F.2d 160; Midstate Oil Co. v. Railroad Co., 270 P. 216; Radetsky v. Jorgensen, 202 P. 175; Johnson v. Railroad Co., 15......
  • State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Union Elec. Co. of Missouri
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1941
    ...cannot be used to vary their effect. Ashbaugh v. Ashbaugh, 273 Mo. 353, 201 S.W. 74; Ohlson v. Batterton, 230 S.W. 113; Gilbert v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 185 F. 102; 18 C. 261; Triplett v. Triplett, 332 Mo. 870, 60 S.W.2d 13; Eckle v. Ryland, 265 Mo. 424, 165 S.W. 1035. (a) The St. Louis Publ......
  • Marland v. Gillespie
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1934
    ...S.D. 486, 122 N.W. 439, and the discussion therein Contained. An almost identical question was presented in the case of Gilbert v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 185 F. 102, which arose in the Western District of Oklahoma and was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, and ......
  • Get Started for Free