Price v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 29 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 8189,8189 |
| Citation | 78 N.M. 123,1967 NMSC 130,428 P.2d 978 |
| Parties | W. B. PRICE, also known as Weldon B. Price, H. J. Loe and Ruby M. Loe, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. S. P. JOHNSON, Jr., Individually and as executor of the last will and testament of S. P. Johnson, deceased, Geraldine O. Johnson, W. C. Hubbard, W. S. Montgomery and Helen H. Bellows, Defendants-Appellees, Louise Wright Simpson and Elwood Roy Wright, heirs and devisees of Gladys Louise Price, deceased, Defendants-Appellants. W. B. PRICE, also known as Weldon B. Price, H. J. Loe and Ruby M. Loe, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY, a corporation, R. E. Reding, Lloyd Evans, S. P. Johnson, Jr., individually and as executor of the last will and testament of S. P. Johnson, deceased, Geraldine O. Johnson, W. C. Hubbard, W. S. Montgomery, Helen H. Bellows, Louise Wright Simpson, Elwood Roy Wright, heirs and devisees of Gladys Louise Price, deceased, C. J. Beach, Edna Beach, G. T. Hall, Floyd Graham, Ben Graham and Ethel Graham, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
The plaintiffs, W. B. Price and others, brought this action in the district court to quiet title to mineral interests in certain lands in Lea County.
The pleadings became so complex by reason of the numerous parties involved and the multiple claims and cross-claims that by agreement the record in this court begins with the requested findings submitted by the parties.
So much of the facts as will be helpful in understanding the issues and the disposition of the case are here set forth.
T. L. Price at one time owned the north one-half of the southeast one-fourth and the southeast one-fourth of the southeast one-fourth of Section 15, Township 15 South, Range 38 East of the New Mexico Principal Meridian in Lea County, New Mexico, as his separate estate. In 1928, T. L. Price conveyed to M. E. Corbin an undivided one-half interest in the surface and minerals in the north one-half of the southeast one-fourth, and the deed was promptly recorded. In 1932, T. L. Price and his wife, Gladys Louise Price, executed a deed to C. J. Beach. The deed in its granting clause recited:
'An undivided one-half interest in the following described land;
The north one-half of the S/E Quarter of Section No. 15, in Township 15, South of range 38 east of the New Mexico principal Meridian; in Lea County, New Mexico and containing 80 acres of land. Also an undivide_ _ one-half interest in and to The south one-half of the S/W one-Fourth of Section No. 14, Township 15, South, Rante 38 east of the New Mexico principal Meridian, Lea County, New Mexico.
Following the warranty clause in the deed this wording appeared:
'Grantor hereby retain unto themselves an undivided one-half of all Royalty in and to the above described land.'
In 1939, while a resident of Texas, T. L. Price executed a Last Will and Testament devising all of his property in Texas and New Mexico to his wife Gladys Louise Price. The will did not name his son, W. B. Price, nor make any provision for him. T. L. Price died in 1941 while yet a resident of Texas and his will was duly admitted to probate in Texas. T. L. Price left no children except W. B. Price who was born prior to the date of the execution of the will. Further, T. L. Price knew at the time of making the will that W. B. Price was his son.
The trial court found that the deed from T. L. Price and his wife to C. J. Beach failed to accomplish a reservation of one-half of the royalty because of the conflict between the reservation and the terms of the granting, habendum and warranty clauses in said deed.
The trial court further found that the Last Will and Testament of T. L. Price was partially revoked by law insofar as lands in New Mexico were concerned because of § 30--1--7, N.M.S.A.1953. While this suit was pending, Gladys Louise Price, a defendant, died. Her children, Louise Wright Simpson and Elwood Roy Wright, were substituted as parties defendant and along with other defendants now appeal from the part of the judgment construing the deed to Beach. These defendants further appeal from that part of the judgment holding that W. B. Price was a pretermitted child of T. L. Price. The plaintiffs, W. B. Price and others appeal from that part of the judgment construing the deed to C. J. Beach.
It has been agreed by all parties to this appeal that under the laws of the state of Texas W. B. Price was not a pretermitted heir, in that he was born prior to the date of the execution of the will of T. L. Price.
Two questions are presented for determination. First, did the trial court err in holding that T. L. Price and his wife, Gladys Louise Price, in the deed to C. J. Beach, conveyed to the grantee an undivided one-half of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under and that may be produced from the north one-half of the southeast one-fourth of Section 15, and did the court err in holding that the grantors did not effectively retain, reserve or except to themselves any portion of the royalty in the above described land by the language 'Grantor hereby retain unto themselves an undivided one-half of all royalty in and to the above described land'?
In approaching the problem it is well to note certain established principles. In Garry v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 71 N.M. 370, 378 P.2d 609, we repeated a statement previously made to the effect that we are in as good position as the trial court to evaluate documents and base findings thereon. Further, where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grantee will be adopted. 7 Thompson, Real Property, Section 3136 (1962 Replacement). In Sharpe v. Smith, 68 N.M. 253, 360 P.2d 917, we stated:
The modern rule is well presented in 58 A.L.R.2d 1411. The annotator summarizes the cases thud:
'A reservation of minerals or mineral rights may be effectually made by the habendum not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. Tergeson
...clause, when on the whole instrument the intention of the parties is sufficiently expressed to be enforced."); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123, 428 P.2d 978, 980–81 (1967) (recognizing that "where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grante......
-
Aragon v. Boyd
...there is nothing to the contrary in the record. We are in as good position to evaluate it as was the trial court. See Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123, 428 P.2d 978 (1967); Garry v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 71 N.M. 370, 378 P.2d 609 That sufficient consideration for the agreement was there......
-
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Beach
...those retained by Price. Questions concerning the effect of the Price will and of a pretermitted child were resolved by Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123, 428 P.2d 978. The Price-Kitchen instrument conveyed an undivided 1/16 interest in 'all the oil, gas and other minerals, in and under, or tha......
-
Hyder v. Brenton
...grantor and in favor of the grantee, Harris v. Four Hills Development Corporation, 79 N.M. 370, 443 P.2d 863 (1968); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123, 428 P.2d 978 (1967). This is particularly true where the construction given the provision works a forfeiture. Garry v. Atchison, Topeka and San......