Sharp v. Fowler
| Decision Date | 05 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. A-3662,A-3662 |
| Citation | 151 Tex. 490,252 S.W.2d 153 |
| Parties | SHARP v. FOWLER et ux. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
LeRoy LaSalle and Thos. H. Sharp, Carthage, for petitioner.
Long & Strong, Carthage, Steve Miller, Tyler, Ghent Sanderford, Austin, for respondents.
This suit was brought by petitioner against respondents in the form of an action in trespass to try title to an undivided 1/4th mineral interest in a 29.7-acre tract of land in Panola County. A trial before the court sitting without a jury resulted in a judgment that petitioner take nothing, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 248 S.W.2d 322. Petitioner's claim of title comes through a deed from the heirs of A. D. Cockrell, and respondents' claim of title comes through a prior deed from the administrator of Cockrell's estate to their predecessor in title. If the administrator's deed was effective to pass the 1/4th mineral interest along with the surface of the land to respondents' predecessor in title, there is no basis for petitioner's claim.
A brief recital of the transactions leading up to this controversy is necessary to an understanding of the precise question before us for decision. On February 4, 1935, Frost Lumber Industries, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Frost), conveyed to A. D. Cockrell 50 acres of land, being a 20.3-acre tract out of the John Simpson Survey (not involved in this suit), and the 29.7-acre tract out of the Texas Central Railway Survey No. 13 involved in this suit. Each tract was described by metes and bounds. The minerals in the 29.7-acre tract belonged at that time to Louis Werner Sawmill Company (hereinafter referred to as Werner), and they were excepted from the grant in the Frost deed. On September 10, 1935 Werner conveyed those minerals to Frost, who, in turn, by deed dated September 16, 1935, conveyed them to Cockrell. Thereafter, Cockrell conveyed away 3/4ths of those minerals, with the result that at the time of his death he had title to the surface and an undivided 1/4th interest in the minerals in the 29.7-acre tract.
On July 17, 1939, A. A. Jordan, as administrator of the estate of A. D. Cockrell, deceased, conveyed the 29.7-acre tract to J. A. Browning, respondents' predecessor in title. In that deed the land was described as follows:
'50 acres of land situated in Panola County, Texas, and being 20.3 acres of the John Simpson Headright Survey, and 29.7 acres of the T. C. Railway Company No. 13, and being the same land described in a deed from Frost Lumber Industries, Inc. of Texas, to A. D. Cockrell, dated the 4th day of February, A. D. 1935, and of record in Vol. 102, page 462, Deed Records, Panola County, Texas.'
The sole question for decision is whether the grant of land in the Jordan deed, which normally would include both the surface and the minerals, was limited to the surface only by virtue of the reference for description to the Forst deed, in which all of the minerals were excepted and only the surface conveyed. Stated in other language, the question is: Did the reference to the Frost deed operate to qualify the estate conveyed and in effect reserve the 1/4th mineral interest to the Cockrell estate, or did that reference serve only to define the area and boundaries of the land conveyed? Both courts below held that the reference in the Jordan deed to the Frost deed was merely descriptive of the boundaries of the land conveyed and did not serve to except the 1/4th mineral interest from the grant or reserve it to the grantor. Their conclusions were based upon the broad ground that a deed passes whatever interest a grantor has in the land, in the absence of Language showing an intention to grant a less estate. That is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henley v. United States
...in the deed. Vogel v. Allen, 118 Tex. 196, 13 S.W.2d 340 (1929); Sharp v. Fowler, Tex.Civ.App., 248 S.W.2d 322, aff'd, 151 Tex. 490, 252 S.W.2d 153 (1952); Garvin v. Hudson, 353 S.W.2d 508 (Tex.Civ.App.1962), writ of error refused n. r. e.; Japhet v. McRae, 276 S.W. 669 (Tex.Com.App.1925); ......
-
Cockrell v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., A-5554
...she reserved all of the royalty that she owned before she executed the deed. As was said by this Court in the case of Sharp v. Fowler, 151 Tex. 490, 252 S.W.2d 153, 154: 'A reservation of minerals to be effective must be by clear language. Courts do not favor reservations by In regard to th......
-
Aery v. Hoskins, Inc.
...10, 299 S.W.2d 672, 675 (1957) ). A reservation by implication in favor of the grantor is not favored by courts. Sharp v. Fowler, 151 Tex. 490, 252 S.W.2d 153, 154 (1952) ; Farm & Ranch Inv'rs, Ltd., 369 S.W.3d at 681 ; Reeves v. Towery, 621 S.W.2d 209, 212 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1981......
-
Piranha Partners v. Neuhoff
...a portion of that which would otherwise fall within the deed's description of the interest granted. Perryman , 546 S.W.3d at 119 ; Sharp , 252 S.W.2d at 154 ; see also King v. First Nat'l Bank of Wichita Falls , 144 Tex. 583, 192 S.W.2d 260, 262 (1946) (explaining that reservations and exce......
-
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2009 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
...734 (5 Cir. 1949)). [180] Id. [181] 181. 2009 WL 3321406, at **3-4 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1 Dist] 2009, no pet.). [182] Id. at *4 (citing 252 S.W.2d 153, 154 (Tex. 1952)). [183] Id. [184] 184. 2009 WL 3491049, at *4 (Tex. App. -- Houston [1 Dist] 2009, no pet.). [185] Id. [186] 266 S.W.3d 4......