Richardson v. Hart

• Decision Date: 12 July 1944
• Docket Number: No. 6125.,6125.
• Citation: Richardson v. Hart, 183 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. App. 1944)
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. HART.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

183 S.W.2d 235

RICHARDSON v.HART.

No. 6125.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

July 12, 1944.

Rehearing Denied October 5, 1944.

Appeal from District Court, Rusk County; R. T. Brown, Judge.

Suit by C. R. Hart against Mrs. A. R. Richardson to recover certain fractional interest in the mineral rights.From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Storey, Sanders, Sherrill & Armstrong, of Dallas, for appellant.

Clark, Craik, Burns & Weddell, of Fort Worth, for appellee.

HALL, Chief Justice.

This suit, brought by appellee against appellant, involves the construction of a mineral deed conveying a fractional interest in the minerals in and under a 10-acre tract of land in Rusk County.Omitting the field note description, the mineral deed reads:

"The State of Texas |  Know All Men By
                                     &gt
                "County of Rusk     |    These Presents
                

"That I, W. J. Gamble, of Rusk County, Texas, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten & No/100 ($10.00) cash in hand paid by W. A. Mulkey hereinafter called Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, sold, conveyed assigned and delivered and by these presents do grant, sell convey assign and deliver unto the said Grantee an undivided 1/16th of 1/8 th interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under, and that may be produced from the following described land situated in Rusk County, Texas, to-wit: * * *

"Together with the right of ingress and egress at all times for the purpose of mining, drilling and exploring said land for oil, gas and other minerals, and removing the same therefrom.

"Said land being now under an oil and gas lease executed in favor of C. M. Joiner, Trustee, it is understood and agreed that this sale is made subject to the terms of said lease, but covers and includes 1/16th of 1/8 th of all of the oil royalty, and gas rental or royalty due and to be paid under the terms of said lease.

"It is understood and agreed that none of the money rentals which may be paid to extend the term within which a well may be begun under the terms of said lease is to be paid to the said Grantee and in event that the above described lease for any reason becomes cancelled or forfeited, then and in that event none of the lease interest and all future rentals on said land for oil, gas and other mineral privileges shall be owned by said Grantee, he owning 1/16th of 1/8 th of all oil, gas and other minerals in and under said lands, together with no interest in all future rents.

"To Have And To Hold the above described property, together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging unto the said Grantee herein, his heirs and assigns forever; and I do hereby bind myself, heirs, executors and administrators to warrant and forever defend all and singular the said property unto the said Grantee herein his heirs, and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof.

"Witness my hand this the 31st day of March, 1931.

                    "W. J. Gamble."
                

Trial before the court without a jury resulted in judgment for appellee for 1/128 of all the minerals in and under said 10-acre tract.

It is appellant's contention that under the terms of the mineral deed appellee was entitled to recover only a 1/1024 of the entire mineral estate.Appellant's claim is by inheritance from her deceased father and mother, Mr. and Mrs. W. J. Gamble.Appellee claims through W. A. Mulkey.The proper construction of the mineral deed from Gamble to Mulkey, copied above, constitutes the sole question here.In construing this mineral deed we must determine the true intention of the parties to it as respects the amount of minerals conveyed.Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed, 121 Tex. 427, 50 S.W.2d 1080, 85 A.L.R. 391.It is also a rule of construction applicable here that a deed will be construed strongest against the grantor and not against the grantee, "as passing the greatest estate possible."Clemmens v. Kennedy, Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 321, 323, writ refused.In two places in the instrument...