Headdey v. Hoopengarner

• Decision Date: 27 November 1906
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: HEADDEY . v. HOOPENGARNER et al.

55 S.E. 744

60 W.Va. 626

HEADDEY .

v.HOOPENGARNER et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Nov. 27, 1906.

1. Landlord and Tenant — Lease — Construction.

The word "grant, " "demise." or "lease, " in a lease for years, creates a covenant in law for good title and quiet enjoyment of the lands demised during the term.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 32, Landlord and Tenant, §§ 111, 471.]

2. Mines and Minerals—Oil and Gas Lease —Construction.

The ordinary oil and gas lease, giving the lessee for a term of years the right to mine and operate for oil and gas, is not a sale of the oil and gas in place, and the lessee has no vested estate therein until it is discovered; but, when found, the right to produce becomes a vested right, and, when extracted, the title vests in the lessee, and the consideration or royalty paid for the privilege of search and production is rent for the leased premises.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent, Dig. vol. 34, Mines and Minerals, § 201.]

3. Same—Rent—Royalty.

When a lease is given for the purpose of mining and operating for oil, in consideration of one-fifth of one-eighth of all the oil produced being delivered to the lessor as royalty; and where, in a division order executed by all the interested parties, fixing and defining their relative interests in the oil produced, the lessor agrees to accept one-fifth of one-sixteenth, and directs the delivery to him of that amount as his portion, he will be estopped to claim more than that amount, as against the parties to said agreement and those acquiring interests in the lease subsequently thereto.

4. Guardian and Ward—Sale op Ward's Land—Rights op Purchaser.

Where, in a summary proceeding instituted under chapter 83, Code 1899 [Code 1906, §§ 3228-3245], for the purpose of selling the undivided interests of infants to the oil and gas in certain lands inherited by them from their father, one purchases the interests of the infants sold thereunder and agrees to pay a stipulated royalty therefor, he will not be relieved from the payment of such royalty, after the sale is confirmed and deed made, on the ground that the father, in his lifetime, disposed of one-sixteenth of all the oil and gas produced on said lands; nor can such proceedings be reopened and corrected, but they are final and conclusive upon all the parties thereto, except for after-discovered mutual mistake of material facts or fraud, and, where relied upon, such mistake or fraud must be clearly and distinctly alleged and proved.

5. Same—Title Acquired.

A summary proceeding for the sale or lease of infants' lands, under chapter 83, Code 1899 [Code 1906, §§ 3228-3245], is. a judicial proceeding, and the maxim, "caveat emptor, " strictly applies thereto. The court sells only the title, such as it is, of the parties to the suit, and it is the duty of the purchaser to ascertain for himself whether the title of those parties may not be impeached or superseded by some other and paramount title; and the purchaser will not be relieved from his purchase, nor from paying the purchase money, though he has acquired no valid title to the land so purchased.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 25, Guardian and Ward, §§ 390, 395.]

6. Same—Liabilities op Purchaser.

Where, under such summary proceedings, the purchaser, by the terms of the decree and deed, is required to pay to the infants four-fifths of one-eighth of all the oil produced, and the guardian, in their behalf, signs division orders directing that one-half of that amount be delivered to him as the share of the infants, and in compliance therewith that amount is delivered to and accepted by the guardian for several years without demanding the full share of his wards, this will not estop the infants from claiming that part of the oil which the guardian did not receive. Nor will those infants, who have continued to receive the oil in the same proportion since their majority, be estopped from claiming their full share.

7. Infants—Estoppel.

While the doctrine of estoppel in pais applies to infants of years of discretion, for intentional fraudulent conduct, in favor of one who is misled thereby, yet estoppel by contract and for mere silence does not apply to them.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Infants, § 135.]

8. Guardian and Ward — Unauthorized Acts of Guardian.

The acts of a guardian, without authority and in excess of his powers, with reference to his ward's estate, do not operate as an estoppel against the infants.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 25, Guardian and Ward, § 286.]

9. Mines and Minerals—Oil Lease—Forfeiture.

In a deed made by a guardian, conveying the oil and gas in certain lands of his wards, it is provided that the lessees, among other things, shall deliver as royalty to the infants, or their guardian, in tanks or pipe lines, free of cost to them or their guardian, the proportionate share of the one-eighth of all the oil produced and saved from the undivided interest of the infants in the land sold; and it is further provided that if the purchaser fails to comply with and do and perform all the things required by him to be done and performed, or any of them, then from the time of so failing to perform the same, or any of them, all rights, estates, interests, and privileges under the decree and sale shall become forfeited and revert to the infants. Held, that under the facts of this case there was no forfeiture and reversion, and the action of ejectment was properly enjoined.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tyler County.

Bill by Mansfield Headley against H. L. Hoopengarner and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant the Colonial Oil Company and others appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Van Winkle & Ambler, W. N. Miller, A. B. & R. F. Fleming, and C. Powell, for appellants.

J.H. Strickling and K. C. Moore, for appellee.

SANDERS, J. This is a suit in equity, brought in the circuit court of Tyler county by Mansfield Headley against H. L. Hoopengarner and others. Upon a final hearing the court below decreed for the plaintiff, and from this decree an appeal has been allowed.

Thomas J. Headley, the father of Mansfield Headley, was the owner, in his lifetime, of two contiguous tracts of land in Tyler county, containing 24 and 46 acres, respectively. On the 6th day of February, 1896, Thomas J. Headley and his wife granted to the South Penn Oil Company one-half of the oil and gas within and underlying the 46-acre tract of land, and on the 14th day of April, 1897, said Thomas J. Headley and wife granted to L. R. Loomis one-half of the oil and gas within and underlying the 24-acre tract of land. Both of these grants were recorded in the clerk's office of the county court of Tyler county; the one to the South Penn Oil Company on the 1st day of April, 1896, and the one to Loomis on the 14th day of April, 1897. Thomas J. Headley died, intestate, soon after the execution of the grant to Loomis, leaving surviving him his widow, Mary Jafle Head-ley, and five children, Mansfield, Elisha, Albert, Florence, and Susannah, infants. Mansfield became of age on March 17, 1899. Elisha Le Masters was appointed guardian of the infants, and on the 17th day of March, 1899, as such guardian, he united with Mary Head-ley, the widow, and Mansfield Headley, the adult, in a lease to H. L. Hoopengarner, M. W. Wharton, and S. A. Karnes & Co., leasing for oil and gas these two tracts of land. Inasmuch as the guardian had no authority to make it, this lease was ineffective to pass the interest of the infants, and on the 8th day of August, 1899, the said guardian filed his petition in the circuit court, reciting, among other things, the execution of the lease by the widow, the adult, Mansfield, and petitioner, as guardian of the infants, and filed the lease as an exhibit with his petition. It set out the advantage it would be to the infants to sell or lease their interest in and to the "undivided seven-eighths of all the oil and of all the gas within and underlying said tract of land, " reserving unto said infants their proportionate share of the one-eighth royalty of oil not sold, and prayed for authority to make such sale. On the same day the court entered a decree authorizing said sale, and the guardian reported that he had sold, at private sale, the undivided interest of the infants in and to the undivided four-fifths of the seven-eighths of all the oil and of all the gas within and underlying said tract of land to the original lessees, Hoopengarner, Wharton, and Karnes & Co., and the court entered a decree confirming the sale. On the same day the guardian made a deed to the purchasers for the oil and gas sold. By various assignments the undivided seven-eighths working interest came on the 23d day of April, 1900, into the hands of N. S. Snyder and W. L. Mellon, and they were the owners of such working interest when in that month oil was first struck on the 24 acres. The interests which the South Penn Oil Company and Loomis had acquired by their conveyances from the ancestor, Headley, and his wife, had never been discovered by the lessees, and consequently had never been taken into account by them, until they came to divide the royalty interest in the oil. Oil being struck first on the 24 acres, the question arose as to what interest Loomis owned, and a division order was agreed upon, signed by Mansfield Headley, Elisha Le Masters, guardian, N. S. Snyder, L. R. Loomis, and W. L. Mellon, giving to Mansfield Head-ley one-eightieth of the royalty, to Le Masters four-eightieths, and to Loomis five-eightieths thereof, and to Snyder and Mellon the seven-eighths working interest. Later oil was discovered on the 46 acres, and another division order was agreed upon, identical with the first, with the exception that the South Penn Oil Company received the five-eightieths royalty. On the 21st day of December, 1900, Snyder and Mellon assigned the whole of the...