Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed

• Decision Date: 16 May 1932
• Docket Number: No. 5055.,5055.
• Parties: RIO BRAVO OIL CO. et al. v. WEED et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

50 S.W.2d 1080

RIO BRAVO OIL CO. et al. v. WEED et al.

No. 5055.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 16, 1932.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Ninth Supreme Judicial District.

Suit by James F. Weed and another against the Rio Bravo Oil Company and others. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals [300 S. W. 171], affirming a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

John T. Garrison, of Houston, Charles D. Smith, of Beaumont, Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, S. H. German, and C. L. Carter, all of Houston, and W. D. Gordon, of Beaumont, for plaintiffs in error.

Hugh L. Stone, of Pittsburg, Pa., D. Edward Greer and John E. Green, Jr., both of Houston, Peveril O. Settle, of Fort Worth, and Orgain & Carroll and Major T. Bell, all of Beaumont, for defendants in error.

LEDDY, C.

This case involves the title to .43 acres of land, being a strip 104.7 feet by 196.3 feet, a part of the John Douthit survey in Jefferson county, Tex., included within the right of way of the Texas & New Orleans Railway.

This suit was instituted by defendants in error, J. F. Weed and the Gulf Production Company, against plaintiffs in error to restrain the latter from drilling said tract of land for oil. After a hearing the injunction was granted, as prayed for. An appeal was taken to the Court of Civil Appeals where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. 300 S. W. 171.

The Douthit survey of land, of which this tract was a part, contained 152 acres. Martha D. Janes is shown to have acquired it through a regular chain of title. On November 1, 1881, she conveyed to the Sabine & East Texas Railway Company a right of way 200 feet in width across the tract. This easement subsequently passed to and is now owned by the Texas & New Orleans Railway Company.

The title to the entire Douthit survey passed regularly from Martha D. Janes to Jeff Chaison and J. M. Hebert, subject to the right of way above referred to.

Chaison and Hebert sold 100 acres off the south portion of the survey, leaving a balance of 52 acres, upon which was situated the railroad right of way 200 feet in width, and containing 3.32 acres.

After Chaison's death, his heirs entered into an agreement with J. M. Hebert for a partition of this land, and, in order to carry such agreement into effect, the tract was subdivided into eight lots. The plat of this subdivision shows the boundaries of the lots, the acreage of each, and their location with reference to the right of way. Thereafter Hebert and the Chaison heirs executed a partition deed, the pertinent portions of which are as follows:

"Know all men by these presents: That we" the Chaison heirs, and "J. M. Hebert, for and in consideration of executing a partition between J. M. Hebert, on the one hand and the said" Chaison heirs "on the other hand, have agreed to the following partition of a part of the John Douthit survey of land situated in Jefferson County, Texas, it being fifty-two (52) acres off the northeast part or end of said survey, * * * said fifty-two acres and the subdivision thereof being fully shown and described by the hereto attached plat, which is marked exhibit X and made a part of this deed. That is to say, the said" Chaison heirs (naming them) "hereby release and relinquish unto said J. M. Hebert as his share of said land to be held by him in severalty, lots and blocks Nos. two (2) and Four (4) as shown by said plat, containing 5 and 27/100 acres each. Also Lots or Blocks Six (6) and Eight (8) as shown by said plat containing six and nine-tenths (6.9) acres each.

"To have and to hold unto the said J. M. Hebert in severalty as his share of said fifty-two acres, and the said J. M. Hebert, hereby releases and relinquishes unto said" Chaison heirs (naming them) "the following lots or blocks as shown by said plat which is attached hereto each being a part of said 52 acres of said John Douthit survey to wit:

"Lots or Blocks One (1) and Three (3) of five and 27/100 acres each: Also lots and blocks Five (5) and seven (7) of six and ninetenths acres (6.9) each.

"To have and to hold unto the said" Chaison heirs (naming them) "in severalty as their share of said Fifty Two acres of land."

The plat attached to this deed, with the land in dispute, shown in the shaded portion, is as follows:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

This deed and plat were filed for record on April 17, 1901, in the deed records of Jefferson county, Tex.

On April 9, 1901, prior to the execution of the partition deed, Hebert conveyed an undivided one-half of his undivided one-half interest in the 52 acres of land to Weed, the description of the land conveyed being as follows: "The undivided one-half of my undivided one-half of, in and to all that certain 52 acres of land, being the northeast end of the John Douthit survey, in said Jefferson County, Texas, about four miles south of Beaumont and more particularly described as follows, towit." Then follows in metes and bounds the description of the 52 acres without any mention being made of the railroad right of way.

It appears from the record that this deed was not recorded immediately after its execution. It seems that Hebert and Weed desired the 52 acres partitioned between the former and the Chaison heirs, on the theory that two parties could partition the 52 acres easier than three. With this in view, Hebert agreed to partition the 52 acres with the Chaisons, and then to convey to Weed one-half of the part received by him.

By deed, dated April 17, 1901, Hebert conveyed to Weed a portion of the land received by him under said partition, the description in said deed being as follows:

"All those certain tracts and parcels of land situated in Jefferson County, Texas, and being parts of the John Douthit survey and more particularly described as follows:

"First: The southeast one-half of Lot No. Six of the subdivision of a tract of fifty two acres of land off the north end of the said John Douthit survey as shown by the plat attached to the deed of partition of said 52 acre tract of land between said J. M. Hebert & the estate of Jeff Chaison dated 13th day of Apl. A. D. 1901 and filed for record in the County Clerk's office in Jefferson County, Texas, on the 17th day of April, A. D. 1901 in which said partition Lots No. Two, Four, Six and Eight were allotted to me the said J. M. Hebert, the said southeast half of the said Lot No. six hereby conveyed is more particularly described as follows, towit:

"Beginning at the east corner of said Lot No. six on the west side of the Sabine & East Texas Railway right of way on the south west side of the track, where the south east line of said Douthit survey crosses said right of way line, said point being 1627 6/10 feet south 45° west from the east corner of said Douthit survey;

"Thence south 45° west with said line 778 feet to the south corner of said tract No. six and the east corner of Tract No. Seven;

"Thence North 45° West with the dividing line of Lots Nos. Six and Seven 186 2/10 feet to corner;

"Thence North 45° East 835 1/10 feet to the line of said Railroad right of way;

"Thence S. 27° & 40' Minutes east 193 3/10 feet with said right of way line to the place of beginning, containing 3 45/100 acres of land.

"Second: Also one undivided one half of Lots two, four and eight of said subdivision as shown by the plat of said subdivision of said tract hereinbefore referred to, which said deed and plat hereto attached are here referred to for more particular description of the land therein conveyed, together with one half of all my right to or interest in any and all gas, oil or other minerals in and under said lots two, four and eight or to which I am or may be entitled on account of said land."

Under the view we have taken of this case the rights of the contending parties depend upon a proper construction of the partition deed executed by Hebert and the Chaison heirs.

Defendants in error contend that the judgment of the trial court establishing their interest in this land is justified upon three grounds:

First. That the partition deed was prepared and executed in the light of the common-law rule that whenever a grantor conveys to a grantee a tract or parcel of land abutting on a highway, street, or alley, public or private, the grantee takes to the center of the way, in the absence of an express reservation in the deed, if the grantor owns that far.

Second. That the partition deed evinces the clear intention of the parties thereto to divide the entire 52 acres, and the court properly gave effect to such intention.

Third. That, if the partition deed be ambiguous, then the practical construction deliberately given the same by both Hebert and the Chaison heirs should control its interpretation.

Plaintiffs in error assert that ownership of the land involved should have been established in them for these reasons:

First. Because the general rule of construction which applies to a deed to land bounded by a public highway, street, or stream, has no application in the case of a railroad right of way.

Second. Because the partition deed of April 17, 1901, between Hebert and the Chaison heirs shows upon its face, as a matter of law, that the right of way of the Texas & New Orleans Railway Company was not partitioned, and no part of same was included in lot 6 of said partition, but that title thereto remained in Hebert and the Chaison heirs as tenants in common, subject to the right of way privileges in favor of the railway company.

At the outset it may be said, if defendants in error are correct in their proposition of law, that the same legal presumption which applies to the conveyance of land abutting on a public highway, street, or stream, is applicable to a railroad right of way, then it necessarily follows that the partition deed between Hebert and the Chaison heirs as well as the deed from Hebert to Weed must be construed to pass the title to the center of the railroad right...