Texas Consol. Oils v. Bartels, 3086

Decision Date09 July 1954
Docket NumberNo. 3086,3086
Citation270 S.W.2d 708
PartiesTEXAS CONSOLIDATED OILS, Appellant. v. E. J. BARTELS et al., Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Johnson & Abney, Dallas, for appellant.

Smith, Eplen, Bickley & Pope, Abilene, for appellees.

COLLINGS, Justice.

This is a treapass to try title case brought by appellant, Texas Consolidated Oils, to establish title to an undivided one-fourth of all the oil, gas and minerals in and under the East 240 acres of the North one-half of Section 122, Block 97, H. & T. C. Ry. Co. Survey in Scurry County, Texas. The suit as originally brought was against, E. J. Bartels and the partners composing the Snowden Oil & Gas Company, Ltd. By amended petition W. P. Wright, Bert Chapman, Robert W. McKissick and Joe Childers were made parties defendant and they, in turn, claimed ownership of the mineral interest in question. Throught disclaimers and dismissals, Bartels and the partners comprising Snowden Oil Company, Ltd., were eliminated from the case. Trial was before the court without a jury and judgment entered against Texas Consolidated Oils upon its claim of title and in favor of defendants, W. P. Wright, Bert Chapman, Robert McKissick and Joe Childers on their cross action. Texas Consolidated Oils had appealed.

Appellant is the same corporation as Texmass Petroleum Company, the name having been changed by charter amendment dated May 22, 1950. The Snowden Oil & Gas Company, Ltd., was a Texas limited partnership, and H. W. Snowden was the sole general partner. On November 1, 1946, the latter company executed a written instrument designated as an 'assignment' which provided in part as follows:

'Now, therefore, know all men by these presents: That the Snowden Oil and Gas Company, Ltd., acting by and throught H. W. Snowden, its sole General Partner, for and in consideration of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars in cash and Seventy Thousand (70,000) shares of the stock of the Texmass Petroleum Company (and other good and valuable considerations), in hand paid to it, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby sell, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto Texmass Petroleum Company, a Texas Corporation, with its principal place of business at Dallas, Texas, all its right, title and interest, legal and equitable, in and to all of the following described real, personal and/or mixed properties located within the United States of America, to-wit:

"1. All the oil, gas and mining leases, royalties and overriding royalties located anywhere within the United States, most of which are located within the States of New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas, together with all personal property, houses, lease houses, machine shops, pipes, tubing, casing, drill pipe, and other oil field equipment, and tools, automobiles, trucks, trailers, tractors, drilling and swabbing equipment of every nature whatsoever owned by said Snowden Oil and Gas Company, Ltd., located thereon or used or obtained in connection therewith.'

'The Snowden Oil and Gas Company, Ltd., shall assign to the Texmass Petroleum Company, by proper assignment and conveyance, all of said properties, real, mixed and/or personal, of every nature whatsoever, provided to be conveyed herein, conveying the same by proper description and in the manner required in the respective States in which said properties are to be conveyed. All of such conveyances shall be by special warranty of title, conveying to the Texmass Petroleum Company only the interest which the Snowden Oil and Gas Company, Ltd., owns in said properties.'

On May 31, 1947, the partners composing the Snowden Oil and Gas Company, Ltd., executed an 'agreement of dissolution' and a 'notice of dissolution' of such limited partnership. All of the above mentioned instruments were duly filed and recorded in Scurry County on November 16, 1949.

Thereafter, on November 22, 1949, H. W. Snowden, purporting to act for the Snowden Oil and Gas Company, Ltd., executed an instrument purporting to convey the mineral interest in question to E. J. Bartels. On August 25, 1950, E. J. Bartels executed a conveyance of such mineral interest to W. P. Wright and Bert Chapman under which all appellees claim title.

It is undisputed that appellees paid a valuable consideration for the conveyance from Bartels. It is likewise admitted that appellees had no actual knowledge of appellant's claim or interest in the property in question until they were served with citation in this suit. Appellees required an abstract at the time of their purchase from Bartels which they had examined by their attorney prior to closing the transaction, but such abstract did not contain a copy of the above mentioned 'assignment' to appellants or of the 'agreement of dissolution' or of the 'notice of dissolution.'

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the trial court. The court concluded that appellees were vested with superior title to that asserted by appellant oil company because they were bona fide purchasers for value in good faith; that the recorded instruments evidencing the claim of appellant oil company were not sufficient to charge appellees with notice of the rights of appellant; that such instruments were void so far as appellees were concerned because they failed to contain a description of the land involved; that the situation in which the parties found themselves arose because no description of a particular tract of land or mineral interest was contained in any of the pertinent instruments filed for record and relied upon by appellant; that appellant was in position to see that such description was set forth in such instruments at least by a particular reference so as to give notice in the usual and customary manner, and that appellees who required an abstract and had same examined were guilty of no derelictions; that the loss as between the parties should be borne by appellant.

It is urged by appellant, Texas Consolidated Oils, that the court erred in holding that the instrument executed and delivered to appellant by Snowden Oil and Gas Company Ltd., on November 1, 1946, and filed for record in the deed records of Scurry County, Texas, prior to the time Wright and Chapman purchased the lease in question, was insufficient to charge appellees with notice of the interest claimed by appellant, and in holding that such instrument was void so far as appellees were concerned because it failed to contain a description of the land involved.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Atlantic Richfield Co. v. State ex rel. Wildlife Conservation Com'n In and For State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1983
    ...208, 230 [1852]; see also Browder, Cunningham & Julin, Basic Property Law, 2nd Ed., West 1973, p. 858.23 Texas Consolidated Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708, 712 [Tex.Civ.App.1954]; Cleary Petroleum Corp. v. Harrison, Okl., 621 P.2d 528, 531 [1980].24 16 O.S.1981 §§ 15 and 16.25 The terms of......
  • In Re Cornerstone E & P Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Texas
    • August 9, 2010
    ...a clearly defined area, such as a named state or county, is sufficiently descriptive to effect a conveyance. Texas Consol Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708, 712 (Tex.Civ.App.1954). In Bartels, for example, the court held that a grant of all rights, title, and interest in “[a]ll the oil, gas a......
  • J. Hiram Moore, Ltd. v. Greer
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • May 20, 2005
    ...Tex. 530, 84 S.W.2d 452 (1935); Strong v. Garrett, 148 Tex. 265, 224 S.W.2d 471 (1949); see also Texas Consol. Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708, 712 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1954, writ ref'd); Smith v. Westall, 76 Tex. 509, 13 S.W. 540 (1890); Witt v. Harlan, 66 Tex. 660, 2 S.W. 41 (1886). 4. ......
  • U.S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Dauley
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • March 31, 1976
    ...v. Whatley, 133 Tex. 608, 131 S.W.2d 89 (1939); Smith v. Westall, 76 Tex. 509, 13 S.W. 540 (1890), and Texas Consolidated Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.Civ.App.1954, writ ref'd). U.S. Enterprises relied upon the attached map as curing the omission of the name of the survey and as fur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 3 TITLE EXAMINATION OF FEE LANDS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Mineral Title Examination III (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...S.W. 1047 (1911). [115] Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Niles, 255 S.W. 604 (Tex.Com.App. 1923). [116] Texas Consolidated Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1954, writ ref'd.). This rule is confirmed in U. S. Enterprises Inc. v. Dauley, 535 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1976) at p. 628; ......
  • CHAPTER 2 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE: A MULTI-STATE PERSPECTIVE
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Nuts & Bolts of Mineral Title Examination (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...that said instruments, when recorded, do provide constructive notice to subsequent purchasers. Texas Consolidated Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1954, writ ref'd.). This rule is confirmed in U. S. Enterprises Inc. v. Dauley, 535 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1976) at p. 628; cont......
  • CHAPTER 5 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE--A MULTI-STATE PERSPECTIVE
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Mineral Title Examination (FNREL) 2012 Ed.
    • Invalid date
    ...that said instruments, when recorded, do provide constructive notice to subsequent purchasers. Texas Consolidated Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1954, writ ref'd.). This rule is confirmed in U. S. Enterprises Inc. v. Dauley, 535 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1976) at p. 628; cont......
  • CHAPTER 2 THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT -- THE SELLER'S VIEW1
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Oil and Gas Agreements - Sales and Financings (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...consent of the other party. [Page 3-1] --------Notes:[1] Copyright 2006, Samuel D. Haas and Jolisa Melton Dobbs. All rights reserved. [2] 270 S.W.2d 708, 711 (Tex. App.--Eastland 1954). [3] 172 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2005). [4] See e.g., Ketchum v. Cook, 247 S.W.2d 1002 (Ark. 1952) (upholding a d......
  • 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