La Neve v. Hinkson

• Decision Date: 07 May 1954
• Docket Number: No. 3068,3068
• Citation: 271 S.W.2d 467
• Parties: Veva LA NEVE, Appellant, v. R. D. HINKSON et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 467

271 S.W.2d 467

Veva LA NEVE, Appellant, v. R. D. HINKSON et al., Appellees.

No. 3068.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

May 7, 1954.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1954.

Marshall, King & Jennings, Graham, for appellant.

Geo. M. Ritchie, Creighton & Creighton, Mineral Wells, Brewster, Pannell, Leeton & Dean, Ft. Worth, for appellees.

COLLINGS, Justice.

This suit was brought on February 5, 1953, for reformation of an oil and gas lease on the ground of mutual mistake. Veva LaNeve, plaintiff in the action, was alleged to be one of the lessors in the oil 19, 1935. Defendants, R. D. Hinkson and 19, 19359 Defendants, R. D. Hinkson and wife, Laura E. Hinkson, Pat F. Dalton and wife, Emma Clay Dalton, Esther Hartnett and husband, Leo J. Hartnett, were also lessors in the oil and gas lease, and defendants Ernest Loyd, J. B. Betts, P. J. Quinlivan, J. M. Denson and A. W. Johnson, were assignees of the oil and gas lease, insofar as it covers the tract of land involved in this suit. All defendants answered by general denial. Defendants R. J. Hinkson and wife and Pat F. Dalton that plaintiff's petition on the ground that plaintiff's petition showed on its face that the cause of action, if any, alleged therein was barred by the four year statute of limitations. The Hinkson and Dalton defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment which, after a hearing by the court, was granted. Veva LaNeve has appealed.

It was alleged in appellant's original petition that in the execution by her as one of the lessors of an oil and gas lease on three described tracts of land in Palo Pinto County on April 19, 1935, a mutual mistake was made by all parties in that the third tract of land described in said lease was intended to be, and should have been, another and different tract from the one described in the lease. Appellant alleged that she first received notice of such mistake less than a year before the filing of this suit and at all times prior thereto thought the lease covered the tract which she sought to have substituted in the lease.

Appellees, R. D. Hinkson and wife, and Pat F. Dalton and wife, escepted to the petition on the ground that it showed on its face that the cause of action sought to be recovered upon was barred by the four year statute of limitation.

Requests for admissions of fact were served on appellant and her answers thereto were made and filed.

On May 21, 1953, R. D. Hinkson and wife and Pat F. Dalton and wife, appellees, filed a motion for summary judgment on the alleged ground that appellant appeared from the pleadings and admissions made by her to have signed the oil and gas lease as a grantor in 1935; that no facts appeared to justify her in failing to bring suit until nearly 18 years after that date to reform the instrument on the ground of mutual mistake and that no facts appeared to prevent the running of the statute of limitation.

On June 12, 1953, appellant filed her supplemental petition, stating under oath that she knew of her personal knowledge that all allegations of fact contained therein were true and correct. On June 13, 1953, appellant filed her answer to the motion for summary judgment and alleged that there were issues of fact to be determined in the case, that is, whether she, appellant, (a) had notice of the mutual mistake more than four years before suit was brought, and if not, (b) whether she was negligent or lacking in reasonable diligence in failing to discover the mutual mistake and referred therein to the fact of the filing of her verified first supplemental.

According to the allegations of Veva LaNeve's sworn supplemental petition, the oil and gas lease in question, which was executed on April 19, 1935, covers three tracts of land, the first tract being 160 acres out of the Thos. Harrell Survey in Palo Pinto County, the second tract being 74 acres out of the same survey, and the third tract being 59 1/2 acres of land described by metes and bounds out of the northwest part of the R. J. Kyle Survey. This third tract will hereafter be referred to as the LaNeve tract. It was alleged that the description of the third tract was erroneous and incorrect, and that as a result of a mutual mistake of the lessors and the lessee in said lease, the LaNeve tract was described and included in the lease but that it was the intention of all the parties at the time the lease was executed to included and to describe as the third tract another and different 59 1/2 acre tract of land out of the southeast part of the R. J. Kyle Survey. The last described 59 1/2 acre tract will be referred to as the Hartnett tract.

It was alleged that the above described tracts of land, as shown by the map, constitute a part of several thousand acres of land in Palo Pinto County and Jack County owned by A. A. Dalton during his lifetime, who, at his death, left as his sole heirs, his four children, Veva LaNeve and the defendants Laura Hinkson, Pat F. Dalton and Esther Hartnett. The heirs and their respective spouses were lessors in the oil and gas lease sought to be reformed.

Veva LaNeve further alleged that the Dalton family referred to their verious tracts of land by definite names which were well-known and understood by the members of the family; that the first two tracts of land described in the oil and gas lease, that is, the 160 acre tract and the 74 acre tract out of the Harrell Survey, together with the Hartnett tract of 59 1/2 acres, were all designated by and known to the Dalton family as 'the farm'; that the NaNeve tract was never considered as a part of 'the farm'; that at the time of the execution of the lease in question, a 7/8ths interest in the oil, gas and other minerals on 'the farm' was owned by Pat F. Dalton and wife and by R. D. Hinkson and wife, and the remaining 1/8th was owned by Laura Hinkson, Esther Hartnett, Pat F. Dalton and Veva LaNeve as heirs of their father, A. A. Dalton.

It was alleged in the sworn pleading that at the time the oil and gas lease in question was executed, appellant Veva LaNeve, was living in Harrison County, Texas; that the lease was received through the mail by her and R. O. LaNeve who, at that time was her husband; that appellant was inexperienced in business matters and knew little or nothing about oil and gas leases, but it was represented to her at the lease covered 'the farm', which had a definite meaning to her which meaning did not include the LaNeve tract; that defendant heirs owned practically all of the oil and gas and other minerals under 'the farm,' appellant's interest therein being only her proportionate part of the 1/8th that she and defendant heirs inherited from their father; that because of her small interest she did not feel that she should stand in the way of and transaction which defendant heirs desired to enter into in connection with leasing 'the farm'; that in preparing and seeing to the execution of the oil and gas lease, defendants R. D. Hinkson and Pat F. Dalton, were in a position of trust to appellant and she relied upon their representations.

Appellant's sworn petition contained the further allegation that as a result of a partial partition of the A. A. Dalton lands, Pat F. Dalton, by a deed dated October 6, 1936, conveyed to Veva LaNeve and her sisters numerous tracts of land, including all of the Kyle Survey, and the two tracts above referred to out of the Harrell Survey, but reserved to Pat F. Dalton and R. D. Hinkson their undivided 7/8ths of the oil, gas and other minerals under 'the farm'; that on March 18, 1937, Veva LaNeve and her sisters, by deeds, partitioned among themselves the A. A. Dalton land which the...