Wade v. Roberts, 38447
| Decision Date | 20 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 38447,38447 |
| Citation | 346 P.2d 727 |
| Parties | Roy M. WADE and Mary Helen Wade, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Hollis ROBERTS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The words of a reservation clause are considered to be those of the grantor and are construed most strongly against him.
2. A reservation is the taking back of part of that already conveyed; and where a deed recites that it conveys title to a described tract of land containing 32 acres more or less followed by a reservation clause reserving 'an undivided 5/32 interest amounting to an undivided five (5) acre interest' of the mineral rights in the lands conveyed, such clause reserved only an undivided five acres of the mineral rights of said land so conveyed.
Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County; Elvin J. Brown, Judge.
Action to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
George Bingaman, Thomas G. Smith, Purcell, for plaintiffs in error.
Luttrell & Luttrell, Norman, for defendant in error.
This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, Hollis Roberts, against the defendants, Roy M. Wade and Mary Helen Wade, to quiet title to certain lands in Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The cause was tried in the district court of that county resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants have appealed to this Court on petition in error and designation of the record under 12 O.S.Ann. § 956.1 et seq.
The question presented by this appeal is the construction of the reservation clause in a deed dated June 23, 1933, from C. M. Holliday and Florence E. Holliday to Richard V. James. The deed in question recites that it conveys title to a described tract of land containing 32 acres more or less. The reservation clause reserved 'an undivided 5/32 interest amounting to an undivided five (5) acre interest' of the mineral rights. The title of Hollis Roberts, the present owner, is subject to the reservation clause. The riparian tract of land by accretion has admittedly increased in area to the extent that 5/32 of the tract amounts to 7.385 acres, which amount (acreage) they have admittedly deeded to Roy M. Wade and Mary Helen Wade, and thus allegedly clouded plaintiff's title. The plaintiff contends that this reservation clause covers only five acres. Defendants contend that it covers 5/32 of the whole tract. Thus the admitted facts and the contentions of the plaintiff and defendants pose the question of whether or not the Hollidays by the reservation in the deed to James reserved an undivided five-acre interest or a 5/32 undivided interest in the oil, gas and other minerals. The trial court found that the Hollidays reserved only an undivided five-acre interest and therefore could not convey more than that amount in their mineral deed to the Wades, and rendered judgment quieting plaintiff's title to all of said lands against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins
...repugnant; however, this may not be a valid conclusion. See, e.g., Woods v. Sims, 154 Tex. 59, 273 S.W.2d 617 (1955); Wade v. Roberts, 346 P.2d 727 (Okla.1959). If examination solely of the language within the instrument's four corners does not yield a clear understanding of the parties' in......
-
Superior Oil Company v. Vanderhoof
...the plaintiffs' 660 mineral acres. Its only effect is to increase the plaintiffs' percentage of Hudson's interest." In Wade v. Roberts, Okl.1959, 346 P.2d 727, 729, the court construed a deed granting 32 acres and containing the reservation of "an undivided 5/32 interest amounting to an und......
-
CHAPTER 4 BASIC MINERAL AND LEASEHOLD CONVEYANCING ISSUES
...297 F. Supp. 1086, 1089 (D. Mont. 1969); El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kelly, 308 F.2d 820, 823 (10th Cir. 1962); Wade v. Roberts, 346 P.2d 727, 729 (Okla. 1959).[109] Laura H. Burney, The Texas Supreme Court's Evolving Mineral-Deed Jurisprudence in the Shale Era: The Implications of Wenske v.......