Watkins v. Slaughter, 5649.
| Decision Date | 09 October 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 5649.,5649. |
| Citation | 183 S.W.2d 474 |
| Parties | WATKINS et ux. v. SLAUGHTER et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County; Daniel A. Blair, Judge.
Suit by F. G. Watkins and wife against Sue Alice Slaughter and husband in the nature of trespass to try title to a royalty interest in oil, gas and other minerals. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Durward D. Mahon and Lawrence F. Green, both of Lubbock, for appellants.
Jno. E. Kilgore, of Dallas, for appellees.
On January 1, 1932, Bob Slaughter conveyed by general warranty deed to the appellant, F. G. Watkins, the east 80 acres of tract No. 6, of the Bob Slaughter Block in Hockley County. After describing the land conveyed, the deed contains the following recitation, "together with a 15/16 interest in and to all the oil, gas and other minerals in and under and that may be produced from said land and the grantor retains title to a 1/16 interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under and that may be produced from said land; but it is distinctly agreed and understood that the grantor, his heirs and assigns, shall not receive any part of the money rental paid on any future lease; and the grantee, his heirs or assigns, shall have authority to lease said land and receive the cash bonus and rental; and the grantor, his heirs or assigns, shall receive the royalty retained herein only from actual production of oil, gas or other minerals on said land." After Watkins acquired the land, he executed and delivered to third parties an oil and gas lease in which the lessees were invested with seven-eighths of the oil, gas, and minerals in and under the land, the remaining one-eighth being retained as royalty. The appellees, R. L. Slaughter, Jr., and his wife, Sue Alice Slaughter, are the present owners of the interest reserved by Bob Slaughter.
This suit was filed by appellants, F. G. Watkins and wife, in the nature of a trespass to try title, and the only question at issue pertains to the meaning and interpretation of the reservation above quoted. Appellants contend that the deed conveyed to the grantee, F. G. Watkins, all of the oil, gas, and other minerals in and under the land save and except 1/16 of any royalty that might be retained or provided for in any future lease executed by the appellants, their heirs or assigns; and the appellees contend that the reservation consisted of 1/16 of all of the oil, gas, and other minerals in and under the land as a royalty in the event the land should thereafter be leased by appellants, their heirs or assigns, for oil and gas development and oil or gas should be produced. The court below entered judgment in favor of the appellees to the effect that the appellants recover the title and possession of the land, save and except a nonparticipating perpetual royalty interest equivalent to 1/16 of the gross minerals theretofore and thereafter to be produced therefrom, such 1/16 interest to be delivered to them, free and clear of all cost and expense, as a royalty.
Appellants duly excepted to the judgment, gave notice of appeal, and have perfected an appeal to this Court, where they present the case upon the single contention that the court erred in construing the reservation of 1/16 of the minerals as, in practical effect, reserving to the grantor 1/2 of the 1/8 royalty provided for in the lease subsequently executed by the appellants. They contend that, by reserving 1/16 of all oil and gas that might be produced from the land and then granting to the appellant, F. G. Watkins, authority to lease the land and receive the cash bonuses and rentals as provided in the reservation, Bob Slaughter thereby retained only an undivided 1/16 interest in all of the oil and gas and that when Watkins, under the authority thus given him by Slaughter, subsequently executed an oil and gas lease thereon, retaining 1/8 of the production as a royalty, he conveyed to the lessee 7/8 of all of the oil and gas contained in the land, including the undivided interest of Bob Slaughter, and, therefore, the appellees, as successors in title to Bob Slaughter, are entitled only to 1/16 of that portion which was retained as a royalty.
Appellees contend that the reservation in the deed was specified as a royalty, and since they did not join in the subsequent oil and gas lease executed by the appellants to third parties, were not named as lessors therein, had not given to the appellant Watkins a power of attorney to lease their portion of the oil and gas, and had not subsequently ratified the lease executed by Watkins, the court was correct in rendering a judgment in their favor to the effect that the reservation consisted of a 1/16 royalty interest in all of the oil and gas produced and to be produced by the lessees.
Our courts have said a number of times that the words "royalty," "bonus," and "rentals" have well-understood meanings in the oil and gas industry....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Wimberley
...not 1/4th of the 1/8th usually, but not always nor necessarily, reserved by a landowner in executing an oil lease. Watkins v. Slaughter, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 474, 477; Id., 144 Tex. 179, 189 S.W.2d 699, 700. Although we may take judicial notice that it is now customary to reserve 1/8th ......
-
Ashland Oil Co. v. Jaeger, 5673
...of the proceed or profit reserved by the owner of land for permitting another to develop the land for oil or gas. Watkins v. Slaughter, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 474 (1974), aff'd 144 Tex. 179, 189 S.W.2d 699 (1945); Robinson v. Milam, 125 W.Va. 218, 24 S.E.2d 236 (1942). The lessee agrees t......
-
Greer v. Shook
...we must instead construe the deed as a whole in order to give effect to the grantor's intent. See, e.g., Watkins v. Slaughter , 183 S.W.2d 474, 475, 477 (Tex.Civ.App.–Amarillo 1944), aff'd , 144 Tex. 179, 189 S.W.2d 699 (1945) (deed was construed to reserve a 1/16 royalty interest, where th......
-
Watkins v. Slaughter
...Jr., both of Houston, amici curiæ. SHARP, Justice. On May 9, 1945, this Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (183 S.W.2d 474) and rendered judgment for petitioners. The case is now pending here on motion for rehearing, and this Court has decided to withdraw the original......