Halbert v. Green, 3198
| Decision Date | 09 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 3198,3198 |
| Parties | A. T. HALBERT, Appellant, v. Cone GREEN et ux., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Tom Gordon, Abilene, for appellant.
Allison & Allison, Levelland, for appellees.
A. T. Halbert sued Cone Green and wife in trespass to try title to an undivided 1/8th interest in the minerals in Sections 63, 82, 83 and the North 1/2 of Section 98, Block D, H. & T. C. Ry. Co. Surveys in Stonewall County. In a trial to the court, judgment was rendered that Halbert take nothing and he has appealed.
On October 13, 1952, Mayme L. Cullum and Willard D. McRimmon executed a mineral deed to A. T. Halbert which purported to convey an undivided 1/8th interest in the minerals in said 3 1/2 sections. Thereafter, Halbert made an agreement with Green, W. C. Kinser and Mrs. Edgar to sell them mineral interests in said sections. Halbert agreed to convey to Green and wife 15 acres of minerals in Sections 63, 82 and 83, and, on October 29, 1952, Halbert executed a mineral deed purporting to convey to the Greens said interest in the minerals, which interest was described as '* * * an undivided 15/2000 interest in and to all of the * * * minerals in and under and that may be produced from the following described lands * * * to-wit: An undivided 5/2000 interest in and under each of the following three Sections of land * * *.'
Mr. Halbert testified that he thought he was buying from Cullum and McRimmon 'term minerals, perpetuated by production;' that when abstracts were received they learned, in December, 1952, that he had bought 'term minerals' that 'would not be perpetuated by production;' that he then had an agreement with Green to trade him 8 acres of royalty under five sections for 8 of the 15 acres of minerals he had purported to convey in said three sections to Green and to pay him $175 per acre for the remaining 7 acres of minerals; that he executed and delivered such a royalty deed and paid Green the $1,225 and Green gave him a quitclaim deed to the minerals he had purported to convey to Green. It is undisputed that the Greens executed said quitclaim mineral deed to Halbert on February 26, 1953, and that the Halberts executed and delivered said royalty deed, a check for $1,225 and a 'correction' deed on February 27, 1953. But, by the instrument frequently referred to as a 'correction' deed, regardless of what the oral agreement was, Halbert conveyed a fifteenth interest in the royalty in the three sections in controversy for a term expiring in 1960. Green contends that, in addition to the royalty under five sections and $1,225, he was to be paid 15 acres of minerals in the three sections in controversy and that said 'correction' deed conveyed said minerals. Halbert contends the entire consideration was 1/8th of the royalty in five sections and $1,225. Said 'correction' deed, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:
'Whereas, by mineral deed dated October 29, 1952 and now of record in Vol. 118, page 579, of the Deed Records of Stonewall County, Texas, A. T. Halbert of Jones County, Texas, conveyed to Cone Green and his wife, Mattie Green, of Levelland, Texas, an undivided 15/2000ths interest in and to an undivided 5/2000ths interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under and that might be produced from the following described lands, situated in Stonewall County, Texas to-wit:
'All of Sections 63, 82 and 83 in Block D, & T C Ry. Co. Surveys in said county, said three sections recited in said deed as containing 2000 acres, more or less, and with the usual provisions for the rights of ingress and egree for the purpose of mining, drilling, exploring, operating and developing said lands for the production of oil and/or gas.
'And Whereas, in truth and in fact said deed contained a misdescription of the interest in said minerals in and under said land intended to be conveyed by said grantor to said grantees.
'And Whereas, Mrs. Mozelle I. Halbert of Jones County, Texas, wife of the said A. T. Halbert, now owns an interest in said minerals.
'And Whereas, it was the intention and desire of all parties to said deed that the interest to be conveyed thereunder was a 15/2000ths interest in and to all of the minerals located in, on or under said three sections of land.
'And Whereas, it was the further intention of the parties to said deed that the said A. T. Halbert as grantor should convey to said grantees a 15 acre mineral interest in and to said minerals in and under and to be produced from said three sections of land, and it now has been ascertained that said three sections actually then contained a total area of 1987.4 acres, and in using the figure 2000 as a denominator for said fractional interest the said grantees did not actually receive their full complement of 15 mineral acres.
'And Whereas, it is the desire of all parties above named that the above described conveyance from the said A. T. Halbert to the said Cone Green and wife be corrected so as to show the true interest intended to be conveyed by such deed in accordance with the above statements.
'And Whereas, by the terms of said deed dated October 29, 1952 and undivided interest in all of the minerals in, on or under or to be produced from said three sections of land was conveyed, when as a matter of fact the only interest then owned in said lands by the grantor was a royalty interest.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halbert v. Green
...at the conclusion of the evidence judgment was rendered and entered that plaintiff 'take nothing.' The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 285 S.W.2d 767. A brief statement of the factual back ground is necessary to an understanding of the issues to be On October 13, 1952, Mayme L. Cullum and ......