Howell Petroleum Corp. v. Holliman
Decision Date | 27 February 1987 |
Citation | 504 So.2d 277 |
Parties | HOWELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al. v. Cecil R. HOLLIMAN, et al. 85-1363. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Mary R. McKay of Watson & Harrison and Andrew J. Smithart III of Lee, Barrett, Mullins, Smithart & Bradford, Tuscaloosa, and Louis P. Moore of Holder, Moore & Grocholski, Fayette, for appellants.
Candice J. Shockley of Holliman & Tucker, Bessemer, and Charles E. Pearson, and James J. Sledge of Rosen, Harwood, Cook & Sledge, Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
This is a deed construction case. The only issue is whether the trial court erred in construing a 1924 deed from J.M. Holliman to the Citizens Bank of Fayette to effect a mineral exception for the benefit of the grantor.
In 1917, the United States granted a land patent for the subject property to William Aldridge; the patent reserved to the United States all the coal in the described property. Aldridge mortgaged the property, without mineral reservation, to the Citizens Bank of Fayette. In 1923, the mortgage was foreclosed, and the property was conveyed to J.M. Holliman, the highest bidder at the sale. In 1924, Holliman executed a deed to the Citizens Bank of Fayette; the deed states, The 1924 deed contained an error in the property description, which was remedied in 1925 by the execution of a corrective deed; that corrective deed made no mention of the mineral interests in this property. 1
Both the plaintiffs, who claim through Holliman, and the defendants, who claim through a 1944 deed from the bank to E.A. Bagwell, moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that the 1924 deed excepted to the grantor Holliman the mineral interests (other than coal) in this property and entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
None of the parties in this case disputes the facts alleged in any of the documents submitted with the summary judgment motions. This Court has held that when the facts of a case are undisputed and the trial court's judgment is to be based solely upon a legal interpretation or conclusion, then the court may grant summary judgment. Walker v. Wilson, 469 So.2d 580, 582 (Ala.1985).
As this Court stated in Financial Investment Corp. v. Tukabatchee Area Council, Inc., 353 So.2d 1389, 1391 (Ala.1977):
The defendants argue that Holliman intended to convey to the bank all of his interest in the property because the deed states, "It being the intention of the grantor to convey to Citizens Bank of Fayette such interest and title as acquired from said Citizens Bank of Fayette." This argument ignores the rules that intention is to be ascertained from the entire instrument, Financial Investment Corp., supra, and that every distinct provision in a conveyance is presumed to have been inserted for a purpose. Martin v. Smith, 404 So.2d 341, 344 (Ala.1981). The deed in question also states, "It is understood that the mineral rights are excepted." Defendants claim that this statement, if it is given effect, makes the deed ambiguous, and thus that this Court must resort to the contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the parties in order to determine the intention of the grantor.
This Court has held that when it clearly appears in the deed that the grantor intended to reserve or except certain mineral rights in the property, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NCNB Texas Nat. Bank, N.A. v. West
...parties to a deed, "every distinct provision in a conveyance is presumed to have been inserted for a purpose." Howell Petroleum Corp. v. Holliman, 504 So.2d 277, 278 (Ala.1987). "[W]here a deed is of doubtful meaning, or where the language of a deed is ambiguous, the intent of the parties t......
-
Exxon Corp. v. Waite
...is plainly and clearly set out. Camp v. Milam, 291 Ala. 12, 277 So.2d 95 (1973)." (Emphasis original.) See also Howell Petroleum Corp. v. Holliman, 504 So.2d 277, 278 (Ala.1987). At trial, while all the parties argued that the language in the deeds purporting to reserve a mineral interest w......
-
Cantley v. Hubbard
...Oil Co. of California v. Colglazier, 360 So.2d 965 (Ala.1978); Turner v. Lassiter, 484 So.2d 378 (Ala.1985); and Howell Petroleum Corp. v. Holliman, 504 So.2d 277 (Ala.1987). In Colglazier, the Court construed a deed "2. There are expressly excepted from the real property described under Pa......