McNeese v. Renner

Decision Date26 February 1945
Docket Number35745.
Citation197 Miss. 203,21 So.2d 7
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesMcNEESE v. RENNER et al.

Livingston & Livingston, of Prentiss, for appellant.

Jno. T. Armstrong, of Hazlehurst, and Watkins & Eager and Green & Green, all of Jackson, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

In 1926, The Great Southern Lumber Company, a corporation, and the then owner of the land here involved, conveyed a portion of it to the appellant by a deed in which the description of the land was followed by:

'It is understood and agreed, that the said Company, for itself its successors and assigns, reserves the right to lay out and establish a road or roads, not more than thirty feet in width, along and upon the section lines surrounding the section in which the above described property is situated, and also along and upon the quarter-section lines of said section, for the use of the public, or as neighborhood roads.

'The Company hereby reserves and retains an undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest in and to all minerals, oil and gas that might hereafter be discovered on the lands herein described, and it is understood and agreed that the right of title so retained shall not be extinguished by the prescription, but shall persist without limit of time notwithstanding that the seller has done nothing on said land or in the discovery of said minerals, oil and gas, prior to their discovery.'

In 1927, it executed another deed to the appellant to another portion of the land with the same two clauses therein. The appellees have succeeded by mesne conveyances to whatever right The Great Southern Lumber Company retained in the minerals, oil and gas lying in the land. It has not yet been ascertained whether there are any minerals of any kind in this land. In Mary 1934, the appellant exhibited a bill of complaint against the appellees in the court below and prayed 'that all claims of the said Defendant to the lands of the Complainant, S. J. McNeese, be cancelled as a cloud upon the title of Complainant; that if Complainant is mistaken in this his general prayer for relief, then he prays that the Court will construe the deeds of conveyance conveying the lands to him and especially as to Paragraphs Three in the said Deeds of Conveyance and to fix the intended interest in and to the Oils, Gas and Minerals in, on or under the said land that the said Defendants now have under said Deeds of Conveyance, if any they have; * * *.' A demurrer by the appellees to this bill of complaint was sustained, and on the complainant's declining to plead further, the bill was dismissed as to these appellees. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1991
    ...and, indeed, the law is full of doctrines that in such extreme circumstances grant a right of access. See, e.g., McNeese v. Renner, 197 Miss. 203, 217-18, 21 So.2d 7, 8 (1945), (recognizing right of mineral owner to reasonable access to the surface for purpose of exploring, removing and mar......
  • Thornhill v. System Fuels, Inc.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1988
    ...Before discussing Harris v. Griffith, we will give a case history of how this question has evolved in this state. In McNeese v. Renner, 197 Miss. 203, 21 So.2d 7 (1945), this Court recognized that minerals and land could be owned separately or concurrently, and that a reservation of "an und......
  • Singer v. Tatum, 43258
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1965
    ...of ingress and egress rights upon said lands for mineral exploration and removal purposes.' (Italics ours.) McNeese v. Renner, 197 Miss. 203, 21 So.2d 7 (1945); Moss v. Jourdan, 129 Miss. 598, 92 So. 689 (1922). The wording of the instruments before the court in the case at bar are as favor......
  • Simson v. Langholf
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1956
    ...100 A. 535; Beam v. Dugan, 132 Cal.App. 546, 23 P.2d 58; Callahan v. Martin, 3 Cal.2d 110, 43 P.2d 788, 101 A.L.R. 871; McNeese v. Renner, 197 Miss. 203, 21 So.2d 7; McCall v. Nettles, 251 Ala. 349, 37 So.2d 635; Hinkle v. Gauntt, 201 Okl. 432, 206 P.2d 1001; Vandenbark v. Busiek, 7 Cir., 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT