State ex rel. Com'rs of Land Office v. Hendrix
| Decision Date | 26 February 1946 |
| Docket Number | 31597. |
| Citation | 167 P.2d 43,196 Okla. 596,1946 OK 70 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. COMMISSIONERS OF LAND OFFICE v. HENDRIX et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 26, 1946.
Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; J. I. Goins, Judge.
Action by the State of Oklahoma, on the relation of the Commissioners of the Land Office, against Dewey Hendrix and others to recover money judgment on a note and to foreclose the securing mortgage. A receiver for the real estate involved was appointed. From an order directing disbursement of funds collected by the receiver, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and matter remanded with directions.
Syllabus by the Court.
The conveyance of an interest in and to all of the oil petroleum, gas, coal, asphalt and all other minerals of every kind and character in and under certain land does not convey gravel, gravel not being a mineral in that sense.
Everett H. Welborn and Bruno Miller, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Jack H Smith, and Reuel W. Little, both of Madill, for defendants in error.
This appeal is from an order of the district court of Marshall County directing the disbursement of funds collected by a receiver. The State of Oklahoma on relation of the Commissioners of the Land Office instituted an action to recover a money judgment on a promissory note and to foreclose the mortgage securing the note. At State's instigation the district court appointed a receiver for the real estate involved, and with the court's permission the receiver contracted to sell gravel from the land for a stated royalty. Ollie L. Beard and certain others, designated as defendants in the trial court, set up claims to fractional undivided interests in the minerals in and under said land by virtue of conveyances to them in the following terms: '* * * in and to all of the oil, petroleum, gas, coal, asphalt and all other minerals of every kind or character in and under, and that may be produced from certain lands * * *.' We do not understand that there is any dispute in the facts, but only that a controversy exists as to whether gravel is a mineral within the contemplation of the above description. The trial court upheld the claims of these mineral estate owners and ordered paid to them a portion of the funds collected from the sale of the gravel.
It is first argued by State that the order made was premature, and the decision on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CHAPTER 9 A REVIEW OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN LANDS AND OWNERSHIP ENTITIES
...ed. 2004). [57] Barker v. Campbell-Ratcliff Land Co., 167 P. 468, 470 (Okla. 1917). [58] State ex rel., Comm'rs of Land Office v. Hendrix, 167 P.2d 43, 44 (Okla. 1946). [59] Cronkhite v. Falkenstein, 352 P.2d 396, 397 (Okla. 1960). [60] Holland v. Dolese Co., 540 P.2d 549, 552 (Okla. 1975).......
-
CHAPTER 10 A REVIEW OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN LANDS AND OWNERSHIP ENTITIES
...ed. 2004). [57] Barker v. Campbell-Ratcliff Land Co., 167 P. 468, 470 (Okla. 1917). [58] State ex re/., Comm'rs of Land Office v. Hendrix, 167 P.2d 43, 44 (Okla. 1946). [59] Cronkhite v. Falkenstein, 352 P.2d 396, 397 (Okla. 1960). [60] Holland v. Dolese Co., 540 P.2d 549, 552 (Okla. 1975).......