Spikes v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1944 |
| Docket Number | 36094. |
| Citation | 149 P.2d 348,158 Kan. 659 |
| Parties | SPIKES v. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 7, 1944.
Syllabus by the Court.
Owner of undivided one-half interest in oil and other minerals subject to oil and gas lease held by owner of the other undivided one-half interest of the oil and other minerals could not enforce partition of the mineral interests as against cotenant and lessee, though there had been no production. Gen.St.1935, 60-2114.
Generally a tenant in common of a fee-simple estate in realty is entitled to partition as matter of right subject to full power of court to make a just and equitable partition between parties and to secure their respective interests. Gen.St.1935, 60-2114.
An owner of an undivided one-half interest in all of the oil gas and other minerals lying underneath a quarter section of land brought an action against the owner of the other undivided one-half interest of the oil and gas, which party also held an oil, gas and mineral lease upon the entire quarter to partition these mineral rights. Held, that the owner of the undivided one-half interest of the oil, gas and other minerals cannot enforce partition against the owner of the other undivided one-half interest of the oil and gas and of the lease.
Appeal from District Court, Grant County; Frank O. Rindom, Judge.
Action by A. T. Spikes against Magnolia Petroleum Company to partition mineral interests under a quarter section of land. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Judgment reversed, with directions.
Joseph G. Carey, W. F. Lilleston, George C. Spradling and Henry V. Gott, all of Wichita, for appellant.
Robert C. Foulston, George Siefkin, Samuel E. Bartlett, and George B. Powers, all of Wichita (J. S. Brollier, of Hugoton, on the brief), for appellee.
This was an action to partition mineral interests under a quarter section of land. Judgment was for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
The petition alleged the residence of plaintiff and that defendant was a corporation authorized to do business in Kansas. The petition then alleged that plaintiff and defendant, as tenants in common, were the joint owners in equal shares of all the oil, gas and other minerals under the quarter section of land in question; that plaintiff and defendant were constructively in possession of this oil and gas; that no exploration had been had and that no reason existed why this oil and gas should not be partitioned and that plaintiff was desirous of having it partitioned.
The prayer was for commissioners to be appointed to partition the minerals in severalty or if that could not be done without manifest injury, then that the mineral rights be sold.
The answer of the defendant set up a copy of the mineral deed by which it acquired a one-half interest in the oil and gas in question from plaintiff's predecessor in title as well as certain contractual rights. The answer further alleged that defendant was the owner of an oil and gas lease on the land in question executed by people who owned the fee-simple title to the real estate except the half interest in the oil and gas owned by defendant, and that all the rentals had been paid so the lease was a valid and subsisting one.
In his reply plaintiff admitted all these allegations but denied that the execution, delivery and validity of the lease constituted a defense.
Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
When this motion came on to be heard the parties stipulated that the court might consider as a matter of fact in passing upon plaintiff's motion that the land was located in the Hugoton gas field and was, therefore, in a proven field and that plaintiff and defendant were the joint tenants in common in equal shares of all the oil and gas and other minerals under the real estate, and that the defendant was the owner of all the property and rights conveyed to it in the mineral deed to which reference has been made.
The trial court sustained the motion of plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillet v. Powell, 38827
...* * *' Defendants cite Fry v. Dewees, 151 Kan. 488, 99 P.2d 844; Drake v. Drake, 153 Kan. 56, 109 P.2d 77; and Spikes v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 158 Kan. 659, 149 P.2d 348. They argue these opinions all hold that a contenant in minerals in place may not have partition except upon equitable ......
-
Strait v. Fuller
...as to oil and gas interests in Fry v. Dewees, 151 Kan. 488, 99 P.2d 844; Drake v. Drake, 153 Kan. 56, 109 P.2d 77; Spikes v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 158 Kan. 659, 149 P.2d 348, in the absence of allegations of special reasons for the intervention by a court of equity to make The question of......
-
Holland v. Shaffer
...only upon showing facts indicating sufficient reason for equitable interference.' (Syl. pars. 4, 5.) While no production was involved in the Spikes case the land encumbered with an oil and gas lease, personal property owned by the defendant. We followed the ruling as to partition of persona......
-
Witt v. Sheffer, 52608
...of making a fair division of the oil and gas in place in the land as a reason for denying partition. See also Spikes v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 158 Kan. 659, 149 P.2d 348 (1944); and Drake v. Drake, 153 Kan. 56, 109 P.2d 77 (1941). Strait v. Fuller, 184 Kan. 120, 334 P.2d 385 (1959), is men......