Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins
Decision Date | 28 February 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 07-CA-58744,07-CA-58744 |
Citation | 558 So.2d 349 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | PURSUE ENERGY CORPORATION, Evie Lee Johnson Michael, Mae Willie Michael Burch, Ella Louise Michael Jefferson, Mattie Louise Michael Foote, 3300 Corporation, Grace Petroleum Corporation, Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A., Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., the Leadership Foundation, Inc., Thomasville, Ltd., Charles S. McClelland, Linda C. McLean, H. Lamar Taylor v. D.L. PERKINS, Mrs. Henry V. Bailey and Mrs. Mable Hammond. |
Alex A. Alston, Jr., Terryl K. Rushing, Thomas Price Alston Jones & Davis, William R. Presson, Satterfield & Allred, Thomas L. Kirkland, Jr., Kirkland, Barfield & Panter, Jackson, for appellants.
Arthur D. Currie, Jackson, for appellees.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PRATHER and SULLIVAN, JJ.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case involves construction of a deed through which a mineral interest was conveyed. The language within the deed's "four corners" was construed by the chancery court as unambiguous, and this Court affirms.
The parties presented various arguments and legal theories, most of which need not be reproduced in this opinion. In essence, this Court was called upon to construe an allegedly ambiguous deed entitled "Mineral Right and Royalty Transfer." 1 The deed, executed in 1969 by Jack and Evie Michaels, conveyed to D.L. Perkins an undivided mineral interest:
Grantor ... does grant ... two and one-half/thirty-two and one-half (2.5/32.5) interest in ...
Twenty five (25) acres off the south end of the Northwest Quarter of Southwest Quarter (NW/4 of SW/4 Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 3 East.
Containing in the aggregate of 32.5 acres.
Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary, it is the specific intent of the grantor to convey and of the grantee to acquire two and one-half (2.5) full mineral acres out of the above described land and grantor does hereby convey and warrant unto grantee two and one-half (2.5) full mineral acres out of the above described lands.
Record at 362 ( ). 2
The dispute over the meaning of the deed's language arose after Pursue Energy Corporation [hereinafter Pursue] 3 commenced operation of a natural gas well in an area of Rankin County which includes the 32.5 acres described in Perkins' deed. Id. at 91-135. Prior to paying owners of mineral interests a share of the production proceeds from the extracted gas, Pursue conducted title examinations. These examinations--or more specifically, Pursue's construction of Perkins' deed--led Pursue to conclude that a partial title failure existed. Pursue consequently withheld from Perkins a portion of his share of the proceeds. Id. at 396-97.
Perkins filed suit in Rankin County Chancery Court seeking release of the withheld proceeds. In his complaint, Perkins contended: (1) that "a contractual duty arose for [Pursue] to pay [him] production [proceeds]" in proportion to his mineral interests "less the cost of development and operation," and (2) that "Pursue ... has breached the duty to pay [him] production [proceeds] less the cost of development and operation." Id. at 3-13. Pursue denied the allegations and asserted numerous affirmative defenses--with only one of which the chancery court concurred. 4
Pursue and Perkins both filed motions for summary judgment. Id. at 352-61 & 462. After hearing oral arguments and reviewing briefs filed by both parties, the chancery court ruled in favor of Perkins, and Pursue appealed. Id. at 490-91.
II. ANALYSIS
In construing the deed, Pursue opines that the "aggregate of 32.5 acres" is essentially two separate but contiguous tracts--one comprising 25 acres and the other 7.5 acres. Pursue contends that the deed conveys to Perkins "an undivided 2.5/32.5 [fractional] interest from each acre in the 25-acre tract ... and also [from each acre in] the 7.5-acre tract." Appellant's Main Brief at 19 (emphasis added). Moreover, at the time when the Michaels conveyed a 2.5/32.5 interest to Perkins, they (the Michaels) owned only a 1.5/32.5 mineral interest in the 25-acre tract. The alleged deficiency of a 1.0/32.5 interest was due to prior conveyances which the Michaels had made to another grantee. Pursue thus credited Perkins with a 1.5/32.5 interest in the 25-acre tract and a full 2.5/32.5 interest in the 7.5-acre tract. Proceeds attributable to the alleged deficiency of a 1.0/32.5 interest in the 25-acre tract were withheld. Record at 396-97.
Perkins disagrees with Pursue's construction of the deed which led to its opinion that a alleged deficiency of a 1.0/32.5 interest and resultant partial title failure exist. Perkins counters that he acquired a full and undivided 2.5 mineral acres out of the aggregate of 32.5 acres. See generally Appellees' Brief at 9-12.
As noted in the Introduction of this opinion, this case is one requiring judicial construction of a deed conveying a mineral interest. 5 A court confronted with such a case will seek to ascertain and effectuate the parties' intent. Cf. Thornhill, 523 So.2d at 1007 () (Robertson, J., concurring in denial of petition for reh'g). A means to this end may entail implementation of a three-tiered process. 6
First, the court will attempt to ascertain intent by examining the language contained within the "four corners" of the instrument in dispute. Pfisterer v. Noble & Cities Serv. Oil Co., 320 So.2d 383, 384 (Miss.1975) ( )(citing Rogers v. Morgan, 250 Miss. 9, 164 So.2d 480 (1964)); see Thornhill, 523 So.2d at 988 n. 2 (); Ewing, Reservations and Exceptions of Minerals in Mississippi Conveyancing, 39 MISS.L.J. 39, 42 (1967) [hereinafter Ewing]; see also Blass & Richey, An Analysis of the Rights and Duties of the Holder of the Executive Right, XLI MISS.L.J. 189, 191 & 191 n. 10 (1970) () [hereinafter Blass & Richey].
"[P]articular words ... should not control[; rather,] the entire instrument should be examined." Mounger v. Pittman, 235 Miss. 85, 108 So.2d 565 (1959) ( ); see Harris, 210 So.2d at 633 (), overruled in part on other grounds in Thornhill, 523 So.2d at 983; Pfisterer, 320 So.2d at 384 ( ); Welborn v. Henry, 252 So.2d 779, 780 (Miss.1971) () (citing Rogers, 250 Miss. at 9, 164 So.2d at 480; Mounger, 235 Miss. at 85, 108 So.2d at 565; Wolfe v. Wolfe, 207 Miss. 480, 42 So.2d 438 (1949)); Richardson v. Moore, 198 Miss. 741, 22 So.2d 494 (1945) (); see also Blass & Richey, supra, at 191 & 191 n. 10 ().
This so-called "four corners" doctrine calls for construction through application of "correct English definition and language usage." Thornhill, 523 So.2d at 1007 ( ); see also Knox v. Shell Western E & P, Inc., 531 So.2d 1181, 1189 (Miss.1988) (Robertson, J., concurring). In other words, an instrument should be construed in a manner "which makes sense to an intelligent layman familiar only with the basics of English language." Id. Of course, exceptions exist (i.e., when a word has a distinctive legal meaning. See id. () (citing Henderson v. State, 445 So.2d 1364, 1366-68 (Miss.1984)); see also Arrington, 183 So.2d at 825.
When an instrument's substance is determined to be clear or unambiguous, the parties' intent must be effectuated. Pfisterer, 320 So.2d at 384 ( ); see Sumter Lumber Co. v. Skipper, 183 Miss. 595, 184 So. 296, sugg. of error overruled, 183 Miss. 595, 184 So. 835 (1938); 26 C.J.S. Deed Sec. 83 (1956) ().
In cases in which an instrument is not so clear (e.g., different provisions of the instrument seem inconsistent or contradictory), the court will, if possible, harmonize the provisions in accord with the parties' apparent intent. A cursory examination of the provisions may lead one to conclude that the instrument is irreconcilably repugnant; however, this may not be a valid conclusion. See, e.g., Woods v. Sims, 154 Tex. 59, 273 S.W.2d 617 (1955); Wade v. Roberts, 346 P.2d 727 (Okla.1959). If examination solely of the language within the instrument's four corners does not yield a clear understanding of the parties' intent, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ROYER HOMES OF MS., INC. v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc.
... ... v. Denmiss Corp., 726 So.2d 96, 106 857 So.2d 752 (Miss.1998). Questions concerning the ... Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349, 351-53 (Miss.1990) ... Legal ... ...
-
Johnson v. Edwards Family P'ship, LP (In re Cmty. Home Fin. Servs., Inc.), CASE NO. 12–01703–NPO
... ... $10,000." MPF Agreement I further provides, "CHFS will vigorously pursue collections for accounts 3 months or more behind. This may include ... (HIL Adv. Dkt. 331 at 30); see Cranson v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. , 234 Md. 477, 200 A.2d 33, 39 (1964). EFP/BHT base their defenses of ... Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins , 558 So.2d 349, 351–53 (Miss. 1990). "First, the ... ...
-
Rotenberry v. Hooker, 2002-CA-00096-SCT.
... ... Pfisterer v. Noble, 320 So.2d 383, 384 (Miss.1975) See also Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349, 352 (Miss.1990) ... Vagueness and ... ...
-
G&B Invs., Inc. v. Henderson (In re Evans)
... ... 09–04124–NPO) Ridgeland Recreational, Corp. (Case No. 09–04125–NPO) Hanover Investments, LLC ... , the defrauded party must elect either to rescind the contract and pursue its claim for fraud, or affirm the contract and sue for contractual ... Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349, 352 (Miss.1990). An ambiguity in an ... ...