Swayne v. Lone Acre Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 27 April 1905
• Citation: 86 S.W. 740
• Parties: SWAYNE et al. v. LONE ACRE OIL CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

86 S.W. 740

SWAYNE et al. v. LONE ACRE OIL CO.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 27, 1905.

Error from Court of Civil Appeals of First Supreme Judicial District.

Action by James W. Swayne and others against the Lone Acre Oil Company. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, reversing in part a judgment for plaintiffs (78 S. W. 380), they bring error. Affirmed.

A. L. Beaty, W. D. Gordon, and E. C. McLean, for plaintiffs in error. Smith, Crawford & Sonfield, Greer, Greer, Nall & Parker, Crane, Greer & Wharton, and Proctors, for defendant in error.

GAINES, C. J.

This is an action of trespass to try title, and was brought by the plaintiffs in error to recover of the defendant in error an estate for the life of Annie E. Snow in an undivided one-eighteenth interest in a small parcel of the John A. Veatch survey, and also to recover a like proportion of the net value of certain petroleum which had been extracted from the land. The plaintiffs recovered in the trial court to the full extent of their claim. Upon appeal the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment as to the land, but reversed and modified it as to the recovery for the oil. The case was tried by the court upon an agreed statement of facts, together with a written stipulation, signed by the attorneys for both parties, as to the judgment to be rendered, according to the determination of certain questions of law affecting the respective rights of the plaintiffs and the defendant.

We will state the facts necessary to a decision of the case; and this as briefly as practicable. It appears from the agreed statement that one Andrew A. Veatch inherited from his father a sixth undivided interest in the Veatch survey of 3,400 acres in Jefferson county, of which his father was the original grantee; that upon the death of Andrew, in 1871, his interest descended to his surviving widow, Annie E., and their two children —that is to say, one third to each of the children in fee, and a life estate in the other third to the widow, with remainder to the children; that she subsequently intermarried with Henry A. Snow; and that by purchase the plaintiffs are the owners of her interest. It also appears that the defendant is the owner of the entire tract in controversy save the life estate which descended to Mrs. Veatch, the widow of Andrew A. Veatch. The entire Veatch survey was unoccupied and uninclosed at the death of Andrew Veatch, but was adapted to agricultural and pastoral purposes. No oil wells had been or were being bored upon it at that time. Oil, however, was discovered upon it in 1891, and the part in controversy is now very valuable for the oil which it is producing.

The stipulation of the parties as to the judgment to be rendered is as follows: "(1) Upon the foregoing statement of facts judgment shall be rendered by the court on the issue of title as to the land described in plaintiffs' petition. (2) In case it is held by the court that the plaintiffs have no interest in the land, then, of course, judgment shall be rendered that the plaintiffs take nothing by their suit, and pay the costs thereof. (3) In case it shall be held by the court that they are entitled to an estate for the life of said Annie E. Snow in one-eighteenth of the land in controversy without any interest in the oil or its proceeds, then the plaintiffs must get their quantum of land from the Gladys City Oil, Gas & Manufacturing Company, and judgment shall be rendered that the plaintiffs take nothing by their suit, and pay the costs thereof. Likewise if it shall be held that the plaintiffs must take their quantum of the land out of the land owned now by the Gladys City Oil, Gas & Manufacturing Company, or out of that sold by it subsequent to the sale to the defendant. (4) If it shall be held by the court that they are entitled to an estate for the life of said Annie E. Snow in one-eighteenth of the land in controversy, and in substance or effect that they are entitled to have one-eighteenth of the net proceeds of the oil that has been extracted and marketed after deducting all expenses of producing and marketing invested or put at interest, and to receive only the interest thereon during her life, the corpus of the fund at her death to belong to the remaindermen, then judgment shall be rendered for the plaintiffs against the defendant for such life estate, and for the value of their interest in the proceeds of oil taken and marketed, to-wit, $300. (5) If it shall be held by the court that they are entitled to an estate for the life of the said Annie E. Snow in one-eighteenth of the land in controversy, and also to one-eighteenth of the net proceeds of the oil extracted and marketed, after deducting all expenses of producing and marketing, judgment shall in that event be rendered for the plaintiffs against the defendant for such life estate and for their one-eighteenth of the net proceeds of the oil marketed, amounting to $500."

The trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals both held that the plaintiffs in error were entitled to a third interest for life in the land in controversy, and that holding is not questioned by either party. The real question in the case is what are the rights of the plaintiffs in error as life tenants in the oil under the land. The trial court held that the plaintiffs in error were entitled not only to a one-eighteenth interest for life in the land, but "also to one-eighteenth of the net proceeds of the oil extracted and marketed, after deducting expenses of producing and marketing," and gave judgment as under the fifth paragraph of the stipulation. The Court of Civil Appeals, however, affirmed the hypothesis contained in the fourth paragraph, and gave judgment under the stipulation in accordance therewith, namely, for one-eighteenth interest in the land for the life of Mrs. Snow and for $300.

Our statute of descent and distribution declares that: "Where any person having title to an estate of inheritance, real, personal or mixed, shall die intestate as to such estate, and shall have a surviving husband or wife, the estate of such intestate shall descend and pass as follows: (1) If the deceased have a child or children, or their descendants, the surviving husband or wife shall take one-third of the personal estate, and the balance of such personal estate shall go to the child or children of the deceased and their descendants. The surviving husband or wife shall also be entitled to an estate for life, in one-third of the land of the intestate, with remainder to the child or children of the intestate and their descendants." Rev. St. 1895, art. 1689. The question is, what, under this provision, are the rights of the life tenant in the oil underlying the land when no attempt had been made to extract it at the time of the descent cast? It is strenuously insisted on behalf of plaintiffs in error that the common-law rules as to the incidents of life estates do not apply to this statute. But we do not concur in the proposition. The statute of January 20, 1840, entitled "An act to adopt the common law," etc., reads as follows: "The common law of England (so far as it is not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of this state) shall, together with such constitution and laws, be the rule of decision, and shall continue in force until altered or repealed by the legislature." Rev. St. 1895, art. 3258. Since the passage of that act, which has ever since remained the law, and is now incorporated in our Revised Statutes as article 3258, probably few cases have been decided in this court in which the rules of the common law have not been expressly or impliedly applied in the...