Schlittler v. Smith

• Decision Date: 11 February 1937
• Docket Number: No. 1998-6694.,1998-6694.
• Citation: Schlittler v. Smith, 101 S.W.2d 543, 128 Tex. 628 (Tex. 1937)
• Parties: SCHLITTLER v. SMITH.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

101 S.W.2d 543

SCHLITTLER v. SMITH.

No. 1998-6694.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

February 11, 1937.

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

Suit by Henry W. Schlittler, Jr., against H. F. Smith. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals [66 S.W.(2d) 353] reversing a judgment of the district court in favor of plaintiff, and plaintiff brings error.

Judgment of Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and judgment of district court reformed and affirmed.

Marshall & King, of Graham, for plaintiff in error.

T. R. Odell, of Haskell, for defendant in error.

GERMAN, Commissioner.

On May 10, 1930, defendant in error, H. F. Smith, executed to plaintiff in error, Henry W. Schlittler, Jr., a general warranty deed conveying a certain tract of land in Young county, Tex. This conveyance contained the following reservation: "Grantor H. F. Smith hereby reserves unto himself, his heirs and assigns for a period of ten years and as much longer thereafter as oil and gas or other minerals are being produced an undivided one-half interest in and to the royalty rights on all of oil and gas and other minerals in, on and under or that may be produced from the land herein conveyed and described above. In the event oil or gas or other minerals are not being produced in paying quantities from said land at the expiration of said ten year period then this reservation shall become null and void and of no further force and effect."

Afterwards a dispute arose between the grantor and the grantee as to the construction to be given this portion of the deed, and this suit resulted. We shall consider the action as one in which we are authorized to construe this provision of the deed. The trial court held that under the conveyance the grantee was authorized to execute leases upon the land for mineral production, and that the grantor was entitled to receive one-half of all royalties received from production of oil or other minerals, in accordance with the terms of any lease executed by the grantee upon the land, but was not entitled to receive any portion of any bonuses paid for leases or any rentals for delay in operating or for renewal of privilege to operate. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that this provision constituted a reservation of a one-half interest in all oil, gas, and other minerals in place, with all of the rights and privileges incident to such ownership. In other words, the effect of the...