Kokernot v. Caldwell, 14232
Decision Date | 02 June 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 14232,14232 |
Citation | 231 S.W.2d 528 |
Parties | KOKERNOT et ux. v. CALDWELL et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
D. S. Meredith, Jr., Longview, Mike Anglin, Ballinger, Alfred Creigh, Jr., Alpine, Stubbeman, McRae & Sealy, and F. H. Pannill, of Midland, for appellants.
J. N. Saye, Longview, A. W. Walker, Jr., and Robertson, Jackson, Payne, Lancaster & Walker, of Dallas, for appellees.
Appellants as plaintiffs instituted this suit in the trial court by petition containing three counts: the first in trespass to try title involving 3/32nds of 1/8th royalty under a 54.2 acre tract of land in the John Walling League, Van Zandt County, Texas; the second count involved the same mineral interest and covered the same land and was a suit to remove cloud from title; and the third count was likewise a suit to remove cloud from title, pleading more particularly the original description of the land which was later discovered to have an excess of 4.2 acres. Defendants, appellees here, answered by general denial and plea of not guilty. For the purpose of this opinion it may be stated that both appellants and appellees claim mineral interests under royalty deeds emanating from Mrs. Ella York et al. Prior to the acquisition of title to the mineral interests, by both appellants and appellees, one F. L. Luckel acquired an oil, gas and mineral lease from Mrs. Ella York et al. Title to the oil and gas lease was thereafter vested in the Pure Oil Company. Said lease was for a period of five years 'and as long thereafter as oil or gas, or either of them is produced from said land by the lessee.' The right to assign was expressly given. In each of the leases referred to, the provisions pertinent to the only question in this case are as follows:
Subsequent to the execution of said leases and assignments to the Pure Oil Company, Mrs. Ella York conveyed by mineral deeds to J. P. Johnston a royalty interest shown by a correction deed; such corrected mineral deed, omitting heading, property description, signatures and acknowledgments, was as follows:
'* * * That we, Mrs. Ella York, a widow, Henry York, G. N. York, C. F. York, and Mrs. Aria Davis, joined by her husband L. L. Davis, of Smith County, Texas, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00), can in hand paid by J. P. Johnston, hereinafter called Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, sold, conveyed, assigned and delivered and by these presents to grant, sell, convey, assign, and deliver unto the said Grantee, for a period of 20 years an undivided one-half interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals, in and under, and that may be produced from the following described land situated in Van Zandt County, Texas, to-wit:
(Description of land by metes and bounds omitted).
'This deed is made and delivered for the purpose of amending for all purposes that certain mineral deed from Mrs. Ella York, et al, to J. P. Johnston, same being recorded Vol. 185, page 65, deed Records of Van Zandt County, Texas, said deed being dated July 17th, 1929.
'Together with the right of ingress and egress at all times for the purpose of mining and drilling and exploring said land for oil, gas and other minerals, and removing the same therefrom.
'It is understood and agreed that the money rentals which may be paid to extend the term within which a well may be begun under the terms of said lease is to be paid to the said Grantee and in event that the above described lease for any reason becomes cancelled or forfeited, then and in that event an undivided one-half of the lease interest and in all future rentals on said land for oil, gas and other mineral privileges shall be owned by said Grantee, he owning 1/2 of all oil, gas and other minerals in and under said lands, together with one-half interest in all future rents.
'To have and to hold the above described property, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging unto the said Grantee herein, * * * heirs, and assigns forever; and we do hereby bind our heirs, executors and administrators to warrant and forever defend all and singular the said property unto the said grantee herein, his heirs and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof.
'Witness our hands this the 24th day of August, 1929.'
(Signatures and acknowledgments omitted.)
J. P. Johnston, grantee in the above mineral deed, subsequently conveyed a portion of the mineral interest so acquired by him to F. A. Hankinson. This instrument contained, immediately after the description clause, the following separate paragraph:
'This grant shall terminate at the end of 20 years from July 17, 1929.'
In the same instrument there is copied the paragraph (except the fractional interests conveyed) contained in the above mentioned mineral deed. F. A. Hankinson subsequently conveyed a portion of said mineral interest to the appellant, W. H. Kokernot. This instrument contained similar paragraphs except that, apparently by mistake, the grant was stated to terminate and the end of 20 years from July 17, 1930, rather than July 17, 1929.
By what is denominated a consolidation agreement, numerous persons agreed that various properties could be operated as one, and by virtue of the fact that 4.2 acres excess was discovered, W. H. Kokernot's interest was reduced to 1/92.49 interest. While the appellant, W. H. Kokernot, did not sign this consolidation agreement, it is undisputed that subsequent to its date, May 2, 1931, Kokernot received the exact interest set forth in said consolidation agreement. Beginning in 1934, and for a period of years extending through 1948, the appellees, D. K. Caldwell et al., some three years after the mineral deed to W. H. Kokernot was filed for record, made various and sundry purchases from Mrs. W. A. York et al. of a portion of their interest. Appellants do not question the making of such purchases by appellees, but only the effect thereof in view of the provisions of the mineral deeds under which appellants claim.
The appellees herein have by numerous deeds executed between the years 1930-1940 by members of the York family, grantors in the mineral deed to J. P. Johnston, acquired mineral interests to be effective upon the expiration of said 20-year period from July 17, 1929. Said 20-year period has now elapsed and this case involves the question of ownership of the royalties payable under the existing lease subsequent to the expiration of said 20-year period.
The only oral testimony was that of W. H. Kokernot and was, in substance, that he saw and signed the consolidation agreement and has received royalty as set out therein since 1931, '* * * until this matter got started * * *.' All other evidence consisted of written instruments.
There is no contention by any party that the instruments involved need extrinsic evidence to assist in their construction; and there was no assignment complaining of the exclusion of evidence oral or written.
There is no dispute between the parties with reference to oil having been discovered within the 5-year primary period under the Luckel-Pure Oil lease, or that oil has been continuously produced thereunder and, at date of the trial in the court below, was still being produced under the terms of said lease by the present owner thereof (Pure Oil Company).
The trial court found for appellees, and entered a take nothing judgment against appellants, from which this appeal has been properly perfected.
Appellants by their first, second and third points in this Court, which are contained in their original brief, assert that (1) the mineral rights created and conveyed to them by the amended mineral deed consisted of two separate and distinct estates, first, a one-half mineral estate in the land described in the first quoted paragraph in the mineral deed above for a definite term of 20 years beginning July 17, 1929; and, second, an interest in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Howell v. Union Producing Company
...n.r.e.; Robinson v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., Tex.Civ.App.1957, 301 S. W.2d 938, 945-947, error ref., n.r.e.; Kokernot v. Caldwell, Tex.Civ.App.1950, 231 S.W.2d 528, 532-533 (at 6) error The Hoffman doctrine is that if within the four corners of a deed the parties indicate agreement on a d......
-
Mafrige v. US, Civ.A. No. L-91-95.
...to" is a term of qualification, meaning "subordinate to," "subservient to," or "limited by." Kokernot v. Caldwell, 231 S.W.2d 528, 531 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1950, writ ref'd n.r.e.). It can limit the estate granted, the estate warranted, or both, depending on the intent of the parties. Bas......
-
Cockrell v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.
...subject to the terms and conditions 'of each and all of the existing leases and conveyances'? As said in the case of Kokernot v. Caldwell, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 528, 531, wr. 'The term 'subject to' as used in the mineral deed has a well recognized meaning. 'The words 'subject to,' used i......
-
Rourke v. Garza
...Tex. 10, 299 S.W.2d 672 (Tex.1956), the Supreme Court approved the following quotation from the case of Kokernot v. Caldwell, 231 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1950, writ ref.): 'The term 'subject to' as used in the mineral deed has a well recognized meaning. 'The words 'subject to,' use......