Kveton v. Farmers Royalty Holding Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1942
• Docket Number: No. 11350.,11350.
• Parties: KVETON v. FARMERS ROYALTY HOLDING CO. et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

161 S.W.2d 583

KVETON v. FARMERS ROYALTY HOLDING CO. et al.

No. 11350.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

March 12, 1942.

Appeal from District Court, Austin County; M. C. Jeffrey, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Albert Kveton against the Farmers Royalty Holding Company and others to recover one-half of the mineral rights in certain realty, on ground of alleged fraud. Judgment was rendered fixing mineral deeds sought to be canceled by plaintiff as valid and subsisting deeds of conveyance. The defendants filed their motion in the original cause to amend and correct former entry of judgment by new entry nunc pro tunc on ground that through mistake or inadvertence description of realty comprehended in original judgment was omitted from the minutes of the trial court. From a judgment sustaining the motion and ordering a new entry made nunc pro tunc, the plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Glenn & Hill, of Sealy, for appellant.

Hollis Massey, of Columbus, for appellees.

MONTEITH, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Austin County sustaining a motion by appellees to amend and correct the entry of a former judgment in said cause by new order nunc pro tunc.

In March, 1934, appellant, Mrs. Albert Kveton, filed suit in the District Court of Austin County for the recovery of one-half of the mineral rights in six tracts of land in Austin and Colorado Counties, Texas, because of alleged fraud. She alleged that she was the owner of said land and that on October 14, 1931, she had executed and delivered certain mineral deeds conveying one-half of the mineral rights therein to appellees, Farmers Royalty Holding Company and G. T. Blankenship. The lands involved were not further described in the petition with the exception of a tract of 200 acres, which was alleged to be the homestead of appellant and was described by reference to other deeds. On June 29, 1934, by written agreement of the parties, judgment was rendered in said cause fixing the mineral deeds sought to be cancelled by appellant as valid and subsisting deeds of conveyance. The agreed judgment recited that the lands comprehended within such agreement were described in an exhibit attached thereto. There was an exhibit attached to said judgment. However, it merely described the lands involved as being certain tracts of land situated in Austin and Colorado Counties. On April 19, 1941, appellees filed their motion in the original cause to amend and correct the former entry of said judgment by new entry nunc pro tunc correctly describing the land involved in the original suit. They alleged in the motion that through mistake or inadvertence the description of the land comprehended in the original judgment was omitted from the minutes of the trial court. The trial court sustained said motion and...