Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. Masterson, A-7470
| Decision Date | 30 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. A-7470,A-7470 |
| Citation | 160 Tex. 548,334 S.W.2d 436 |
| Parties | TEXAS PACIFIC COAL & OIL COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. Stella MASTERSON et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
I. M. Wilford, Houston, Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Bradley, Houston, W. M. Streetman, Houston, for Stella Ann Masterson et al.
Eugene T. Adair, Fort Worth, Ira Butler, Fort Worth, R. Daniel Settle, Fort Worth, McLeod, Mills, Shirley & Alexander, Galveston, Fountain, Cox, Gaines & Fox, Houston, for Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. et al.
Jack C. Hardy, Beaumont, Williams, Lee & Lee, Houston, for Sun Oil Co.
B. F. Whitworth, Jasper, Liddell, Austin, Dawson & Huggins, Houston, for E. E. Weaver et al.
Powell, Rauhut, McGinnis & Reavley & Lochridge, Austin, for Lawther Corp.
William J. Knight, Houston, for the Farish Group.
As originally instituted, this was a suit brought by respondents against petitioners on two causes of action: The first was a statutory trespass to try title action in respect to 7/11 interest in a specific 1/4 mineral interest in five tracts of land in the Manuel Tigerino Survey in Harris County, Texas. The second cause of action was an action for the value of oil and gas produced from and in respect to the mineral interest sued for by respondents. The title controversy was severed by order of the trial court from the money controversy, and we are concerned here only with the issues raised between all parties as to title. The trial was before the court with the intervention of a jury. By trial amendment the fraction 7/11 mentioned above was changed to 94/132. Two of the defendants named in respondents' suit filed cross-actions, also asserting interests in these tracts; however, their asserted rights stem from those of the original plaintiffs.
The jury returned a verdict favorable to the plaintiffs and cross-plaintiffs, but the trial court granted the remaining defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and rendered a take-nothing judgment against the plaintiffs and cross-plaintiffs. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals for the Tenth Supreme Judicial District reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. 325 S.W.2d 834.
Since the contentions of the parties other than those named in the style of the case may be aligned either with the contentions of the Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company interests, or with the Masterson interests, it will be convenient to group the parties together for reference. Those who were plaintiffs or cross-plaintiffs in the trial court will be designated as the Masterson group and those who were defendants the Texas Pacific group.
Both groups have presented applications for writs of error to this court. The Masterson group contends that judgment should have been rendered in its favor because the record in this case reflects a perfect legal title in each member of the group to a definite and specific interest in the land in controversy.
The Texas Pacific group contends that the record shows as a matter of law that the members of its group are the owners of the land in controversy, and that, therefore, the trial court correctly entered its judgment non obstante veredicto, and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding to the contrary. This group urges other alternative points, but our view of the decisive question renders it unnecessary to pass upon such points.
We have concluded to reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm that of the trial court for the reasons now to be stated.
Our decision turns on the construction to be given a certain deed dated October 9, 1920, from Masterson Irrigation Company to T. S. Masterson. The granting clause of the deed reads:
'* * * do bargain, sell and convey unto the said T. S. Masterson, the following tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Harris, and State of Texas, described as follows, to-wit: All the unsold portion containing 186.4 acres out of the 640 acres known as the Manuel Tigerino Survey patented to Stiles Courtis Assignee October 15, 1850 by patent No. 460, Volume No. 3, Abstract No. 763, and more fully described by metes and bounds in said patent recorded in Harris County, Texas, Deed Records, Volume 'N' page 546, to which reference is here made.'
The decisive question presented is this: Did the deed of October 9, 1920, convey 'all the unsold portion' of the grantor's interest in the Manuel Tigerino Survey, or did the phrase 'containing 186.4 acres' have the legal effect of restricting the conveyance to less than the unsold portion? The record is undisputed that the Masterson Irrigation Company on October 9, 1920, the date of the above deed, owned a larger interest in the Manuel Tigerino Survey than 186.4 acres. In 1917, the irrigation company was the owner in fee simple of the entire survey. During that year and the following year, it conveyed by five separate deeds to five grantees, Matlage 65 acres; Tressler 110 acres; Mueller 65 acres; Werner 113.6 acres, and Theis 100 acres. The irrigation company retained an undivided 1/4 mineral interest in each tract. It was stipulated in the trial of this case that the Masterson Irrigation Company had not previously sold or conveyed any of such survey. Thus it is uncontroverted that on October 9, 1920, the portion of the survey then unsold consisted of the minerals reserved in each of the five deeds, plus the remainder of the surface and minerals after deducting the specific acreage conveyed in each of the five deeds.
In 1921, the Masterson Irrigation Company was dissolved. This is significant only in explanation of the reason for the suit being filed by the Masterson group claiming title to the 1/4 undivided mineral interest as shareholders and distributees of the residuary assets of the Masterson Irrigation Company. It is our view that Masterson Irrigation Company in its deed to T. S. Masterson did not retain the title to the 1/4 mineral interest in the five tracts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Templeton v. Dreiss
...and not from isolated parts thereof. Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crews, 898 S.W.2d 786, 789 (Tex.1995); Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. Masterson, 160 Tex. 548, 334 S.W.2d 436, 439 (1960); Davis v. Andrews, 361 S.W.2d 419, 423 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1962, writ ref'd n.r.e.). That intention, when a......
-
Cowan v. Worrell
...(1891) ). "The call for acreage ... ‘is the least reliable of all calls in a deed.’ " Id. at 21 (quoting Tex. Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. Masterson , 160 Tex. 548, 334 S.W.2d 436, 439 (1960) ). "When the specific description [by boundaries] is clear, there is no necessity for invoking the aid of......
-
Aery v. Hoskins, Inc.
...as a whole and not from isolated parts. Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crews, 898 S.W.2d 786, 789 (Tex.1995) ; Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. Masterson, 160 Tex. 548, 334 S.W.2d 436, 439 (1960). Construction and interpretation must give effect to all provisions so none will be rendered meaningless.......
-
Alford v. Krum
...and not allow ambiguities to "destroy the key expression of intent" included within the deed's terms. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Masterson, 160 Tex. 548, 334 S.W.2d 436, 439 (1960). In cases involving the construction of mineral deeds, the "controlling language" and the "key expression......