Richardson v. Moore

• Decision Date: 11 June 1945
• Docket Number: 35899.
• Citation: 198 Miss. 741,22 So.2d 494
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: RICHARDSON et al. v. MOORE et al.

22 So.2d 494

198 Miss. 741

RICHARDSON et al. v. MOORE et al.

No. 35899.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 11, 1945

H. H. Parker, of Poplarville, and Hugh V. Wall, of Brookhaven, for appellants.

J. M. Morse, of Poplarville, for appellees.

ROBERDS, Justice.

The question to be determined herein is the title and ownership of the minerals and mineral rights in certain lands located in Pearl River County, Mississippi.

Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees, by warranty deed, conveyed the lands to Hoskins-Moore Lumber Company, a co-partnership of four persons, but which deed contained this provision: 'The fee herein is subject to mineral and oil rights, if any, now of record and not owned by the grantors herein and subject also to all public highways.'

It is agreed that no person other than the grantors in that deed then had, or claimed, and mineral rights in the lands, and that this deed vested in Hoskins-Moore Lumber Company the fee-simple title to the lands.

Hoskins-Moore Lumber Company conveyed the lands to Mrs. Maude S. Smith by warranty deed which contained this provision: 'Also reserving the oil and mineral rights on the said lands together with the right to enter upon, explore for and remove the said oil and mineral in accordance with a deed made to us by the Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees, conveying to us the said land.'

Mrs Smith, by warranty deed, conveyed the lands to J. C Richardson, 'Subject, however, to any mineral or oil rights, if any such exist, belonging to any former owner of said land other than this grantor.' J. C. Richardson later conveyed to T. F. Richardson a one-half interest in whatever he got under the Smith deed.

The Richardsons, complainants below and appellants here, claim ownership under the Smith deed and also by adverse possession. Appellees, defendants below, controvert appellants' claim of title by adverse possession, and also contend that the Hoskins-Moore deed to Mrs. Smith excepted the minerals, and the they, being the one surviving partner and the heirs of three deceased partners of Hoskins-Moore Lumber Company, are the owners of such minerals. The lower court found for appellees.

The question is: Did the deed to Mrs. Smith convey, or except the minerals?

In trying to solve this question, we should keep in mind certain well-established principles of construction of contracts. Those applicable here are (1) the deed must be read in the light of the circumstances surrounding the parties when it was executed; (2) that the construction should be upon the entire instrument, and each word and clause therein should be reconciled and given a meaning, if that can be reasonably done; (3) that the main document and that to which it refers must be construed together; (4) that if the wording of the deed is ambiguous, the practical construction placed thereon by the parties will have much weight in determining the meaning; and (5) that in case the deed is ambiguous, and subject to two possible constructions, one more favorable to the grantee, and the other more favorable to the grantor, that construction favorable to the grantee will be adopted.

As to the circumstances surrounding the parties, the deed from Edwards Hines Trustees to Hoskins-Moore is dated August 31 1922, and that from Hoskins-Moore to Mrs. Smith is dated August 19th, twelve days earlier, and the Hines deed was acknowledged in Chicago the day of its date. Apparently when Hoskins-Moore prepared their deed they did...