Landgrebe v. Rock Hill Oil Co.
| Citation | 273 S.W.2d 636 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 12710,12710 |
| Parties | Erwin LANDGREBE et ux., Appellants, v. ROCK HILL OIL COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Fischer, Wood, Burney & Nesbitt, Corpus Christi, Dougherty & Morrill, Beeville, for appellants.
R. A. Weinert, Seguin, Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, James W. McCartney Thomas Fletcher, Houston, Linton S. Benge, Goliad, Guittard & Henderson, Victoria, for appellees.
Rock Hill Oil Company is the lessee in an oil and gas lease covering 290.22 acres of land, at one time owned by Henry Landgrebe and wife, Kate Landgrebe, both now deceased, composed of three tracts; Tract No. 1 containing 150 acres, and Tracts Nos. 2 and 3 containing 140.22 acres (one time thought to contain 141.66 acres), all three tracts of land being out of the Thomas Hancock and M. Williams Surveys in Goliad County, Texas. The question here presented is whether or not this lease at the present time, under the circumstances herein, is a pooled or communitized lease, calling for a payment of royalties among the owners of the land in proportion to the number of acres owned by each and covered by the oil and gas lease here involved.
The trial court held that the lease is a pooled or communitized lease, and that all the heirs of Henry and Kate Landgrebe who have not sold their interest are entitled to have the royalties from the lease apportioned among them, according to the number of acres owned by each in the 290.22 acre tract. From that judgment Erwin Landgrebe and his wife have prosecuted this appeal.
Appellants have made a clear and accurate statement of the facts, subject to one criticism made by appellees, and we here adopt this statement, changing it in one place to meet appellees' criticism.
'Prior to the death of Henry Landgrebe in 1934, he and his wife, Kate Landgrebe, owned as community property the three tracts of land involved in this suit. One tract contained 150 acres and the other two tracts contained a total of 140.22 acres, then thought to be 141.66 acres. For convenience, the tracts will be designated hereafter as they were in the oil and gas lease out of which this litigation arose, i. e., the 150 acre tract will be designated as Tract No. 1, and the 140.22 acres will be designated Tracts Nos. 2 and 3. Henry and Kate Landgrebe had nine children, all of whom survived their parents. Henry Landgrebe died testate on June 19, 1934. In his will he provided that under certain conditions, his son, Erwin Landgrebe, the appellant, should be allowed to purchase the 150 acre Tract No. 1. Henry Landgrebe devised all of his property to his wife, Kate, for life and gave her the right to sell it if she considered it necessary for her comfort or support, and to dispose of the proceeds as she saw fit. After the death of Henry Landgrebe, and by deed, dated September 4, 1934, Kate Landgrebe conveyed the 150 acre Tract No. 1 to Erwin Landgrebe, reserving a life estate and the right to receive the rents, profits, income and revenue from said Tract No. 1, during her life. It should be noticed that Kate Landgrebe did not reserve merely a life estate, but specifically reserved the 'rents, profits, income and revenue' derived therefrom during her natural life. Thereafter, on March 15, 1940, Kate Landgrebe and eight of her nine children executed an oil and gas lease covering all three tracts of land, then estimated to comprise a total of 291.66 acres. One of the children, L. W. Landgrebe, did not execute this lease. Kate Landgrebe died on the 27th day of March, 1945, without having disposed of any of the real estate except for the execution of the oil and gas lease (and the granting of a royalty conveyance which does not affect this case), and devised her land to her nine children, equally. About three months later, by deeds dated June 30, 1945, the nine children of Kate Landgrebe executed partition deeds among themselves, partitioning, separating, and segregating the lands which they had theretofore held in common, so as to thereafter hold in severalty. It should be noticed at this point that prior to the death of Kate Landgrebe Erwin Landgrebe, pursuant to the instructions in his father's will, had purchased the 150-acre Tract No. 1, for a cash consideration of $4,000.00. Tracts Nos. 2 & 3 were owned, prior to the death of Kate Landgrebe, by Kate Landgrebe, to the extent of a one-half undivided interest, and by each of the nine children, to the extent of one-eighteenth undivided interest. Upon her death, each of the nine children became entitled to a one-ninth undivided interest in Tracts Nos. 2 & 3, or an undivided interest of 15.58 acres, received from their father and mother. A re-survey was made at this time, June 15, 1945, at which time Tracts Nos. 2 and 3 were found to contain 140.22 acres, each child owning 15.58 undivided acres. On June 30th, 1945, the children each owned an undivided interest of 15.58 acres, except that Erwin Landgrebe owned 165.58 acres, being his 15.58 acre tract, plus his 150 acres, which he had purchased for $4,000.00. Thereafter, and as soon as the probate proceedings were completed on the Estate of Kate Landgrebe, Deceased, the nine children by the execution of general warranty deeds partitioned among themselves all the lands which they had theretofore held in common. These partition deeds were in the form of general warranty deeds and made no specific reference to minerals, or to the existing oil and gas lease on the entire properties. Each child immediately received his own deed, had it recorded, and the tax rendition changed.
'Thereafter, in about January, 1950, the lessee brought in a gas and gas distillate well on the 150 acre Tract No. 1, owned by Erwin Landgrebe. No market being available at the time, shut-in gas royalty payments were made by the Lessee to the nine children, in accordance with the contentions made by each at the time. However, when the well was put on production, and the children of Henry and Kate Landgrebe were in dispute as to who was to receive the royalty from such well, the Rock Hill Oil Company, and others, filed their petition in this case, naming the children of Henry and Kate Landgrebe defendants and asking that the court determine the ownership of the royalties from past and future production.
'Erwin Landgrebe, owner of the 150 acre Tract No. 1, on which the well was situated, filed his answer and cross-action asserting that he was entitled to the royalty and that the other children had no interest therein. Mary Sievers, one of the eight brothers and sisters, disclaimed in favor of Erwin Landgrebe, in effect adopting the allegations of his cross-action. The other Landgrebe children filed their answer alleging that they were entitled to the royalties from the well on Erwin Landgrebe's Tract, in the proportion that their 15.58 acre Tracts now held by them in severalty bears to the entire acreage covered by the lease, i. e., 290.22 acres, as found on re-survey. For convenience, this group of Landgrebe children who claim adverse to Erwin Landgrebe were referred to hereafter as the 'Landgrebe Defendants'. The South Texas Development Company and D. E. Kinney claim through an assignment from Erwin Landgrebe, and have adopted the allegations contained in his cross-action. The trial court held that the owners of the 15.58 acre Tracts were entitled to participate in the royalty from the production on Tract No. 1 in the proportion that their acreage bore to the entire 290.22 acres under lease. The holding of the trial court is based upon the proposition that the oil and gas lease was a pooled or communitized lease at the time of its execution, and that neither the death of Kate Landgrebe, nor the partition deeds, nor the parol partition nor any other occurrence effected a segregation of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. Union Producing Company
...the words or the incidence of the transaction must demonstrate some disavowal of former relationships. See Landgrebe v. Rock Hill Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App.1954, 273 S.W. 2d 636, 639-640, error ref., n.r.e. It should be the duty of the trial judge to determine the intent of the parties when the ......
-
Duffy v. Callaway
...258 S.W.2d 413, 419 (RNRE); Eighth Annual Institute on Oil and Gas Law and Taxation, page 143. In Landgrebe v. Rock Hill Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W.2d 636 (RNRE), there was a pooling of three tracts by the joint execution by separate land owners of one lease. Thereafter, there was a par......
-
Ward v. Gohlke
...Humble Oil & Refining Co., 151 Tex. 324, 249 S.W.2d 914; French v. George, Tex.Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 566, wr.ref.; Landgrebe v. Rock Hill Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W.2d 636; Hoffman, Voluntary Pooling and This primary instrument was subject to joinder and ratification by other persons own......
-
Standard Oil Co. of Tex. v. Donald, 15974
...will be regarded during the life of the lease as production from each and all other tracts included therein.' In Landgrebe v. Rock Hill Oil Company, Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W.2d 636, all owners, except one, of the mineral interests in several tracts joined in the execution of a lease. Later, th......
-
Chapter 10 CHAPTER 10 THE ENTIRETY CLAUSE-ITS CURRENT USE AND INTERPRETATION
...supra N. 2. [10] Southland Royalty Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 151 Tex. 324, 249 S.W.2d 914 (1952); Landgrebe v. Rock Hill Oil Co., 273 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954); French v. George, 159 S.W.2d 566 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942); Parker v. Parker, 144 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940). [11......
-
Chapter 16 VOLUNTARY COMMUNITIZATION-WHEN WILL IT BE IMPLIED IN OIL AND GAS LEASES?
...App. 1942). An example of a Texas case holding that the rule of apportionment is a rule of property is Landgrebe v. Rock Hill Oil Co., 273 S.W.2d 636, 4 O. & G.R. 286 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954). In that case the lessor's testimony that he had never heard of a community lease was ignored. [35] Hi......