Turner v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 18 May 1938
• Docket Number: No. 1735-7043.,1735-7043.
• Citation: Turner v. Hunt, 116 S.W.2d 688, 131 Tex. 492 (Tex. 1938)
• Parties: TURNER et al. v. HUNT et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

116 S.W.2d 688

TURNER et al. v. HUNT et al.

No. 1735-7043.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

May 18, 1938.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Eighth Supreme Judicial District.

Trespass to try title by Neal Turner and others against H. L. Hunt and others. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 88 S.W.2d 520, reversing a judgment for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs bring error.

Affirmed.

Lasseter, Simpson & Spruiell, of Tyler, for plaintiffs in error.

McEntire, James & Shank, Ben D. Clower, and Jerome P. Kearby, all of Tyler, and McEntire & Shank, of Dallas, for defendants in error.

SMEDLEY, Commissioner.

After trial without a jury, the district court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in error against defendants in error for the title to one acre of land in Rusk county. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause. 88 S.W.2d 520.

On November 22, 1924, Smith Wilson and wife, the common source of title, being the owners of a tract of land containing approximately 82 acres, conveyed to plaintiff in error Neal Turner 24 acres off the east end of the tract. The deed contained, after the description of the 24 acres by metes and bounds, the following: "There is also conveyed by this conveyance one acre of land for house setting, said acre to be surveyed at any suitable place along the south boundary line of said 82 acre tract, making 25 acres deeded in all." Neal Turner made no selection of the one acre until the early part of the year 1934, when he caused to be surveyed an acre of land rectangular in form on the south boundary line of the 82-acre tract and about 200 feet west of the 24 acres which had been conveyed to him by metes and bounds. The one acre so selected and surveyed is the land in controversy. At about the same time, on January 27, 1934, Turner leased the one-acre tract for oil and gas to plaintiffs in error J. W. Smith and R. H. Hedge. This suit was filed in March, 1934. Turner had theretofore, on March 18, 1929, executed to C. M. Joiner, trustee, an oil and gas lease covering the 24-acre tract. Smith Wilson on the same day, March 18, 1929, leased the 82-acre tract for oil and gas to C. M. Joiner, trustee, using a general description sufficiently broad to include the entire tract.

Oil was first produced in the East Texas oil field in which the land in controversy is situated, in the fall of 1930. Defendant in error Hunt Production Company became the owner by assignments of the two oil and gas leases last above described and, some time before Turner made his selection of the one acre, caused two producing oil wells to be drilled on the 24-acre tract and several producing oil wells to be drilled on the west 58 acres of the 82-acre tract. Turner knew that these wells had been drilled before he made selection of the one acre. No well has been drilled on the one-acre tract in controversy. There is no evidence showing how far the producing wells are from the boundary lines of said tract.

On May 24, 1930, Turner and wife executed and delivered to plaintiff in error R. E. L. Silvey an instrument whereby they conveyed to him an undivided one-half interest in the oil, gas and other minerals in 25 acres out of the 82-acre tract, using the same description as that contained in the deed from Wilson and wife to Turner, that is, describing the 24 acres by metes and bounds and adding thereto the statement that there was also conveyed one acre of land for house seat, to be surveyed at any suitable place along the south boundary line of the 82-acre tract. This instrument contains, after the description of the land, the following paragraph: "Said land being now under an oil and gas lease, executed in favor of C M Joiner, it is understood and agreed that this sale is made subject to the terms of said lease, but covers and includes one half of all of the oil royalty, and gas rentals or royalty due and to be paid under the terms of said lease in so far as it covers the above described property."

Plaintiffs in error Jacobs and Pittner are assignees of interests under the conveyance last described.

Wilson had the legal title to all of the 82-acre tract, except the east 24 acres, when on March 18, 1929, he executed the oil and gas lease to C. M. Joiner, trustee, for his deed to Neal Turner, as hereinafter shown, was not a present conveyance of the one acre. Turner's conveyance of the royalty interest to Silvey was, by reason of the paragraph above quoted from it, a formal recognition of the validity of Wilson's lease to Joiner, which included the one acre in controversy, and constituted a ratification of that lease binding upon Turner to the same extent as if he had joined in the execution of the lease. Grissom v. Anderson, 125 Tex. 26, 79 S.W.2d 619; Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Clark, 126 Tex. 262, 267, 268, 87 S. W.2d 471. This formal recognition of Wilson's lease to Joiner was also binding upon plaintiffs in error J. W. Smith and R. H. Hedge, who claim under an oil and gas lease thereafter executed by Turner. Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Company, Tex.Sup., 114 S.W.2d 226, 234; Harvard v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 743; Hardy v. De Leon, 5 Tex. 211; Kimbro v. Hamilton, 28 Tex. 560.

Plaintiffs in error make the contention that the effect of Turner's ratification of the lease executed by Wilson was destroyed by Turner's subsequent execution and Hunt Production Company's acceptance of an instrument confirming Turner's lease of the 24-acre tract to Joiner and making the description more certain. But that instrument was intended to affect and did affect only the lease which had been made by Turner to Joiner. It made no reference to Wilson's lease to Joiner or to Turner's ratification of that lease. It confined the Turner-Joiner lease to the 24-acre tract described by metes and bounds, but it in no way limited the scope of Wilson's lease to Joiner of the land to which Wilson had the legal title and it had no effect upon Turner's ratification of that lease in so far as it covered the one acre in controversy.

It follows that the trial court's judgment was erroneous in awarding the leasehold interest in the one acre to Neal Turner and other plaintiffs in error claiming under him. However, it is necessary to discuss other questions, for at least two of those who appealed from the judgment in favor of plaintiffs in error appear from the record to claim royalty interests in the land in controversy through deeds or assignments executed by Wilson. Turner's act of ratification extended only to the leasehold estate or interest and not to the royalty interest.

Defendants in error...