Sun Oil Co. v. Smith

Decision Date30 June 1949
Docket NumberNo. 39132,39132
Citation43 So.2d 148,216 La. 27
PartiesSUN OIL CO. v. SMITH et al.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Smitherman, Smitherman & Purcell, Shreveport, Cotton & Bolton, Rayville, Fink & Fink, Monroe, Warren Hunt, John C. Morris, Jr., Rayville, for defendants-appellants.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

This is a concursus proceeding instituted by the Sun Oil Company under the provisions of Act No. 123 of 1922. Pursuant to an order of court, the oil company deposited in the registry of the district court the proceeds from the purchase price of a one-eighth royalty of the oil produced from wells located on the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4, and the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4, Section 5, Township 16 North, Range 8 East, and cited numerous claimants to appear and assert their respective interests and rights thereto, as well as to all future deposits made pursuant to such order. The claimants are: S. M. Smith, Charles Smith, R. N. Smith; the children of Mrs. Cora Smith Covington, these being Herman Covington, Mrs. Katie Covington Warren, Mrs. Lavada Covington Ryan, Morgan J. Covington, Marcus Covington, Hazel Covington, Annie J. Covington, William Washington Covington, Ray Covington, and Mary Frances Covington; Mrs. Blanche Smith Biddy, Raleigh A. Hunter, Jr., and Mrs. Annie E. Hunter Medlin--all as fee owners--, and J. E. Day, J. A Woods, Mrs. Minnie Lee Woods, J. B. Woods, J. F. Woods, A. A. Geyer, T. C. Eades, H. A. Hamilton, and W. D. Byrd--who claim to own various mineral or royalty rights conveyed by certain of the fee owners named above.

The case was tried and submitted to the lower court for decision on a stipulation of counsel for all claimants and on documentary evidence, consisting of various deeds and other instruments, which disclose the following facts:

Prior to the year 1900, S. M. Smith was married to, and living in community with, his wife, Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith. On November 19, 1901, David Burk conveyed to S. M. Smith all of the property hereinabove described, from which oil is now being produced, together with the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5, Township 16 North, Range 8 East, for the price of $1000.00, of which amount $200.00 was paid in cash, and for the balance or credit portion four promissory notes were executed, each in the sum of $200.00, payable on December 1 of the year 1902 and on the same date for the following three years. Thereafter, on September 4, 1902, S. M. Smith reconveyed to David Burk the identical property previously acquired. This instrument is designated by the parties thereto as an act of retrocession, and the consideration was the sum of $200.00 in cash and the surrender and cancellation of the four vendor's lien notes of Smith, described in the deed of his acquisition. In this instrument the words of conveyance read as follows:

'[S. M. Smith] * * * does by these presents Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey, Deliver and Retrocede with Full Warranty of Title and with complete transfer and subrogations of all rights and actions of warranty against all former proprietors of the property hereby conveyed unto David Burk, * * * who is present and accepting this sale and retrocession for himself * * *.'

On September 16, 1904, Mrs. Amanda J. McKelvey conveyed to Smith by warranty deed the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 5, which had been previously conveyed by David Burk to Smith and by Smith back to Burk in the act of retrocession hereinabove mentioned. Thereafter, on October 12, 1904, Sim Burk, who had acquired a one-half interest from David Burk, and David Burk conveyed to S. M. Smith and R. A. Hunter, Sr., the identical property described in the act of retrocession, which included the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 5. However, with reference to this tract, the act of sale recited that the vendors conveyed only such interest or claim as they might have had without any warranty whatsoever, and that the purchasers accepted the property at their own risk and peril but were subrogated to any rights or actions of warranty against all former proprietors. This is the same 40-acre tract which had been previously acquired by S. M. Smith from Mrs. Amanda J. McKelvey.

Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith, wife of S. M. Smith, died on October 6, 1906, survived by her husband and nine minor children: Charles Smith, R. N. Smith, Mrs. Cora Smith Covington, Mrs. Blanche Smith Biddy, Mrs. Janie Smith Hunter, Bruce Smith, J. A. Smith, R. A. Smith, and Martin Smith. Of these heirs, Bruce, J. A., R. A., and Martin Smith died without issue, leaving their father, S. M. Smith, and their brothers and sisters as their sole and only heirs. Mrs. Cora Smith Covington died in 1931, leaving as her sole and only heirs 10 children, all named as claimants hereinabove. Mrs. Janie Smith Hunter and her husband, R. A. Hunter, Sr., died in 1909. Her sole heirs were her three minor children, Mrs. Annie E. Hunter Medlin, then aged four years; Raleigh Hunter, Jr., aged four months, and another child who subsequently died.

On July 6, 1908, after the death of Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith, S. M. Smith and his son-in-law, R. A. Hunter, Sr., entered into a deed of exchange, in which Hunter conveyed to Smith with full warranty the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 and the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5, and Smith conveyed to Hunter, also with full warranty, the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of this section. This is the identical property described in the deed to Smith and Hunter, Sr., from David and Sim Burk on October 12, 1904, except for the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of this section which was omitted from this deed of exchange. For the purpose of clarity, we shall hereafter refer to the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 and the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, the land described as being conveyed to Smith in the deed of exchange, as 'Tract A', and to the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 5, which was not described or mentioned in the deed of exchange, as 'Tract B'.

The parties have stipulated that, as of October 12, 1904, a good, valid and merchantable title as to Tract A was vested in S. M. Smith, who was married to, and living in community with, his wife, Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith, and in R. A. Hunter, Sr., who was married to, and living in community with, his wife, Mrs. Janie Smith Hunter, in the proportion of an unidivided one-half interest to each. All claimants have further stipulated and agreed that Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith's one-half interest in whatever property belonged to the community of acquets and gains existing between her and S. M. Smith was inherited by her nine minor children; that, after the death of Mrs. Smith, the interest of each of the deceased children who died intestate and without issue was inherited in the proportion of an undivided one-fourth by their father, S. M. Smith, and an undivided three-fourths by the surviving Smith children or the children of deceased children, and that as a result of these facts the community previously owned by S. M. Smith and his wife, Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith, now belongs to the following named persons in the following proportions:

                S.M. Smith .............. 2,915,010/5,160,960
                Charles Smith
                R.N. Smith
                Blanche Smith Biddy ..... 449,190/5,160,960 each
                Raleigh Hunter, Jr
                Annie E. Hunter Medlin .. 449,190/10,321,920 each;
                Ten children of Cora
                Smith Covington ......... 44,919/5,160,960 each.
                

As to Tract A, the district court found that the partition or deed of exchange between S. M. Smith and R. A. Hunter, Sr., was invalid, and that consequently, subject to all valid sales, conveyances, etc., an undivided one-half interest in the minerals and royalties from this tract belonged to Raleigh Hunter, Jr., and Mrs. Medlin by virtue of their interitance of the community estate of their father and mother and an undivided one-half interest belonged to S. M. Smith and the heirs of Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith.

As to Tract B, the district court found that R. A. Hunter, Sr., never acquired any interest therein, and that it belonged in its entirety to the community of acquets and gains existing between S. M. Smith and his wife, Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith, and that, subject to all valid sales, conveyances, etc., the minerals and royalties from it belonged to S. M. Smith and the children or descendants of Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith. From this judgment all claimants appealed.

Tract A.

(N 1/2 of NW 1/4 and NW 1/4 of NE 1/4, Section 5, Township

16 North, Range 8 East)

As to Tract A, it is the contention of Raleigh Hunter, Jr., and Mrs. Annie E. Hunter Medlin that the deed of exchange, in which their father exchanged Tract A with Smith for the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4, is an absolute nullity, since the minor heirs of Mrs. Annie Freeman Smith were not made parties thereto, and since no court order was obtained authorizeing the sale or partition of the minors' interest in the property.

Immediately after the deed of exchange between Smith and Hunter, Sr., of date July 6, 1908, Smith and Hunter, Sr., went into possession of their respective tracts conveyed by the deed. (The tract acquired by Smith is that which we have designated as Tract A; the 80-acre tract acquired by Hunter, Sr., is not a part of the property from which the royalty oil involved in this suit was produced.) Smith fenced and cleared his tract, and resided there with his family. He assumed control, ownership, and possession of the tract acquired by him in the deed of exchange, has never sold any portion thereof, and has remained in continuous, physical possession ever since. Hunter, Sr., conveyed to William D. Hunter on November 27, 1908, one 40-acre tract which he acquired in the deed of exchange, and, several years after his death and that of his wife, his son, Raleigh Hunter, Jr., together with S. M. Smith, executed a deed conveying all of 'their entire interest' in the other 40-acre tract to Arthur Medlin, husband of his sister, Mrs. Annie Hunter Medlin, who had also inherited an interest therein from her father and mother.

It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Jarvis v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 12 Julio 1961
    ...be owner of the entire interest. Held: allegations in the prior complaint are evidentiary admissions, not estoppels.); Sun Oil Co. v. Smith, 1949, 216 La. 27, 43 So.2d 148. (Owner of land filed inventory in prior tutorship proceedings stating that he owned undivided one-half interest. In la......
  • Callahan v. Authement
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 23 Diciembre 1957
    ...771; Long v. Chailan, 187 La. 507, 175 So. 42; and Gibson v. Pickens, 187 La. 860, 175 So. 600.' Again in the case of Sun Oil Co. v. Smith, 216 La. 27, 43 So.2d 148, 153, it was 'To hold that the Hunter children had, by virtue of their long silence and acquiescence, ratified this partition,......
  • Twillie v. H. B. Zachry Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 7 Febrero 1980
    ...and has relied or acted on them to his prejudice. Farley v. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co., 133 La. 497, 63 So. 122 (1913); Sun Oil Co. v. Smith, 216 La. 27, 43 So.2d 148 (1949); Prieto Lumber Co. v. Shoultz, 111 So.2d 857 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1959); Succession of Turner, 235 La. 206, 103 So.2d 91 ......
  • Eves v. Morgan City Fund
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 2 Septiembre 1971
    ...to be complete until the boundaries were marked by Gourrier, Surveyor. Alternatively, appellants argue on authority of Sun Oil Co. v. Smith, 216 La. 27, 43 So.2d 148, and Lang v. Fornea, La.App., 135 So.2d 643, that the partition was void as to all persons having an interest in the property......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT