Texas Gulf Producing Co. v. Griffith
| Decision Date | 03 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 38712,38712 |
| Citation | 65 So.2d 834,218 Miss. 109 |
| Parties | TEXAS GULF PRODUCING CO. v. GRIFFITH et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Chill, Landman & Gordon, Jackson, for appellant.
Green, Green & Cheney, Jackson, Hall & Callender, Columbia, and Robert G. Livingston, Prentiss, for appellee.
Wells, Thomas & Wells, Jackson, amicus curiae.
We have given careful and painstaking consideration to the suggestions of error filed on behalf of the appellant, Texas Gulf Producing Company, and the appellee, Geraldine B. Martin, and we have reached the conclusion that both suggestions of error should be overruled.
The appellant, however, urges upon us the necessity that this Court construe the instrument executed by Estella Magee and her husband, Houston Magee, to Charles F. Longino, dated July 1, 1944, and we yield to this in order to clarify our holding that the decree of the court below should be affirmed as to the 8 acres here involved.
The appellees, Roy E. Watson and B. C. Griffith, sought by their original bill filed in this cause to cancel the Thrift lease dated November 16, 1939 as a cloud upon their asserted title to the leasehold interest under the lease executed to Roy E. Watson by Estella Magee and her husband, Houston Magge, dated November 26, 1949, covering an undivided 1/2 interest in the oil, gas and other minerals in the entire 48 acres here involved. In order to prevail, it was necessary that appellee show a perfect title in themselves, Nicholson v. Myres, 170 Miss. 441, 154 So. 282, and that the Thrift lease had terminated. This they succeeded in doing as to the 8 acres unless the Magees, by the execution of the aforesaid instrument to Charles F. Longino, had divested themselves of the leasing rights which remained in them after conveying an undivided 1/2 interest in the minerals to Geraldine B. Martin. We are of the opinion that they had not so divested themselves of such leasing rights for the reason that the instrument executed by them to Charles F. Longino was a royalty conveyance and not a mineral deed, and that the same validly reserved in the Magees the right to execute future leases.
This brings us to a consideration of the nature of the instrument executed by the Magees to Charles F. Longino under date of July 1, 1944. This instrument is headed 'Royalty Deed.' The instrument, excluding the signatures and acknowledgment thereof, is as follows:
'Royalty Deed
'Know All Men by These Presents:
'That Stella Milloy Magee and husband Houston Magee for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) Dollars, to us cash in hand paid by Charles F. Longino the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant, bargain, sell, and convey unto the said Charles F. Longino and unto his heirs and assigns forever, Subject, However, to all of the terms, conditions and reservations hereinafter mentioned, An Undivided One half (1/2) interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals, in, under and upon the following described lands situated in Jefferson Davis County, in the State of Mississippi:
'NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 section 33, Township 9 North Range 19 West and the south 8 acres of that certain 16 acres on the east side of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 section 3 Township 8 North Range 19 West containing in all 48 acres more or less.
'It is the intention of the Grantors herein to convey by these presents and they do convey by these presents 24 mineral acres.
'The grantors herein expressly reserve to themselves their heirs or assigns, the exclusive right to lease said lands, or any part thereof, for oil and gas purposes, without interference or hindrance upon the part of the grantee, his heirs or assigns; and the grantee herein, his heirs or assigns shall never be entitled to receive any part of the consideration, cash or otherwise, paid or to be paid, for any oil and gas mining lease heretofore or hereafter executed covering said land, or any part thereof, nor shall the grantee, his heirs or assigns, ever be entitled to receive any part of any delay rentals to defer the commencement of drilling operations provided by any such lease; and the grantee herein, his heirs or assigns, shall not be required to join in the execution and delivery of any oil and gas mining lease covering said land, or any part thereof, in order to convey good title to lessee thereunder; Provided, that the grantors herein expressly covenants with the grantee that no oil and gas mining lease shall ever be executed covering the above land, or any part thereof, that shall reserve to the grantors herein, their heirs and assigns, as royalty, less than one-eight of all of the oil and gas produced and saved from said land and that this covenant shall be deemed a covenant running with the land.
'It is the intention of the parties hereto that the grantee herein, his heirs, or assigns, shall be entitled to receive hereunder one-half (1/2) of all oil and/or gas run to the credit of the royalty interest reserved under and by virtue of any oil and gas mining lease now in force and effect covering said land, and under any oil and gas mining lease hereafter executed covering said land, or any part thereof; and in any event the grantee herein, his heirs or assigns, shall be deemed the owner of and shall be entitled to receive part of all oil and gas produced and saved from said land, or any part thereof.
'To Have and to Hold the above described property and property interest together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances hereunto belonging, unto the said Charles F. Longino, his heirs, and assigns forever.
'And they hereby covenant with the said Charles F. Longino that we will forever warrant and defend the title to the above described lands and the rights herein conveyed against all lawful claims whatever.
'Witness our signatures on this 1 day of July, 1944.'
In construing the aforesaid instrument, it is necessary under well recognized rules of construction that the same be construed as a whole, and that the intent of the parties thereto be gathered from the plain and unambiguous language therein employed. In 26 C.J.S., Deeds, Sec. 84, page 328, we find the following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whittington v. Whittington, 07-CA-59434
...as a whole. Lackey v. Corley, 295 So.2d 762 (Miss.1974); Ford v. Jones, 226 Miss. 716, 85 So.2d 215 (1956); Texas Gulf Producing Co. v. Griffith, 218 Miss. 109, 65 So.2d 834 (1953). Where the instruments' substance is clear the intent of the parties must be given effect. Pursue, 558 So.2d a......
-
Rogers v. Morgan, 43097
...In the case of Texas Gulf Producing Company v. Griffith, 218 Miss. 109, 65 So.2d 447, we said on the suggestion of error, reported in 65 So.2d 834, that 'Applying these rules of construction to the instrument under review, we find no difficulty in determining the instrument to be a royalty ......
- Klaas v. Continental Southern Lines
-
Knox v. Shell Western E & P, Inc., 56567
...printed instrument of conveyance, no matter how detailed and specific. We have precedent to the contrary. In Texas Gulf Producing Co. v. Griffith, 218 Miss. 141, 65 So.2d 834 (1953), the Court held the conveyance one of royalty only, despite a typed-in intention clause reference to "twenty-......