Whitman v. Harrison, 37407
| Decision Date | 03 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 37407,37407 |
| Citation | 1958 OK 141,327 P.2d 680 |
| Parties | Harry D. WHITMAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. Floyd A. HARRISON, Loreen Harrison, Sterling Williams, Jno. W. Nichols, W. Ross Pierce, and the unknown heirs, executors, administrators, devisees, trustees, and assigns of Nellie M. Ketchun, Deceased, and L. M. Hiatt, Deceased, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
When a deed of conveyance provides for an exception, excluding certain interests from the operation of the granting clause, but no apt words are used which would indicate there was an intent on the part of grantor to reserve unto himself any interest in said property, the deed under our statute 16 O.S.1951 § 29 must be construed to convey to grantee all of the interest vested in grantor at the time of the execution of the deed.
Appeal from District Court of Oklahoma County; Fred A. Daugherty, Judge.
Action to quiet title. Judgment for defendants and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Brown & Verity, Paul Brown, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Felix, Douglass & Griffin, H. L. Douglass and Kenneth J. Wilson, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
This case was tried to the district court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, upon a stipulation of facts, and is appealed to this court on a petition in error and upon a designation of the record. 12 O.S.Ann. § 956.1 et seq.
Nellie M. Ketchum was the owner of the surface and all of the oil, gas, and other minerals in and under the
E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 14 North, Range 3 West of the Indian Meridian, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
During the year 1929 she made term mineral conveyances covering an undivided 60 acres. Thereafter she conveyed an undivided 15 acres of minerals in fee.
March 11, 1932, Nellie M. Ketchum conveyed by warranty deed to Chas. Gray, said deed being as follows, to wit:
'Warranty Deed
'Statutory Form--Individual
'Know All Men By These Presents:
'That Nellie M. Ketchum, a single person of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, party of the first part, in consideration of the sum of One dollar and the exchange of property and other valuable considerations, in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby, Grant, Bargain, Sell and Convey unto Chas. Gray of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, party of the second part, the following described real property and premises situate in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, to-wit:
'The East half of the Southeast Quarter of Section thirty-two (32) in Township Fourteen (14) North of Range Three (3) West of I. M., containing 80 acres, more or less.
('It is understood that Grantor is conveying only 5/80ths of the oil, gas and mineral rights in and under the above described land, and that this conveyance is made subject to oil, gas and mineral rights amounting to 75/80ths of the total oil, gas and mineral rights previously sold by this grantor, which is hereby excepted from this grant.)
'Together with all the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, and warrant the title to the same.
'To Have And To Hold Said described premises unto the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever, free, clear and discharged of and from all former grants, charges, taxes, judgments, mortgages and other liens and incumbrances of whatsoever nature.
'Except first mortgage, held by Guthrie Investment Company in the principal sum of $1,000.00 dated January 28, 1931, and assigned to B. A. Hays, which Grantee assumes and agrees to pay.
'Signed and delivered this 11th day of March, 1932.'
At the time of the execution of the above deed the said Nellie M. Ketchum was the owner of the surface of the 80 acres, 5 acres of minerals in fee, and a reversionary interest in the 60 acres of term mineral interests, which had not yet reverted to her because the terms had not expired.
The case was tried to the trial court on stipulation of facts as above set forth. The judgment of the trial court held that under the quoted language in the Ketchum deed that the remote grantees of Chas. Gray, listed herein as defendants in error, were entitled to the 60 acre reversionary interest.
This appeal is lodged by Harry D. Whitman, plaintiff in error. The record is not clear as to what mesne of conveyance Whitman claims interest. However, his title to any interest reserved by Nellie M. Ketchum by the terms of the above deed is not questioned.
The question for us to determine here is whether the warranty deed executed by Nellie M. Ketchum conveyed all of her right, title and interest, or by the terms of said deed she reserved the reversionary interest in the 60 acre mineral interest which was held by others under term mineral conveyances at the time of the execution of deed.
Title 16, § 29, O.S.A. Provides:
'Every estate in land which shall be granted, conveyed or demised by deed or will shall be deemed an estate in fee simple and of inheritance, unless limited by express words.' (Emphasis ours.)
We are confronted with the problem of determining what part of the conveyance of an estate in fee simple was limited by express words used in the deed here involved.
The plaintiff contends that the grantor Ketchum reserved to herself the mineral interest in the 60 acres, but we find in the deed no words of reservation by or to grantor.
That poses the question whether express words of reservation in the deed are necessary. Whatever the rule or the result might be in the absence of any statute, this court had held that in view of the above statute there must be, somewhere in the deed, appropriate language expressly reserving some interest in and to the grantor, or the grantor's entire interest passes by a warranty deed to real estate.
In Rose v. Cook, 207 Okl. 582, 250 P.2d 848, 852, this court applied the rule that while:
'Under our decisions the reservation need not be expressed in the granting clause of the deed, but may be contained in the warranty clause, * * * or, as we have said, within the four corners of the instrument.'
Nevertheless:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calvert v. Swinford
...are available at https://okcountyrecords.comat any hour of the day or any day of the week.40 Furthermore, the Court stated in Whitmanv. Harrison, 1958 OK 141, ¶¶ 13–16, 327 P.2d 680 that:... ‘To create a reservation it must appear from the instrument that the grantor intended to and by appr......
-
James v. Langford
...of a contrary intention from the terms of the grant and the attendant circumstances, see 16 Okla.Stat.1971 § 29; Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680, (Okla. 1958); Rose v. Cook, 207 Okl. 582, 250 P.2d 848 (Okl.1952); Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations v. Seay, 235 F.2d 30 (10th Cir.1956), cert. de......
-
Scott v. Peters
...the grantor attempted to deed the exact same property in 2001 with no reservation clause whatsoever. As the Court stated in Whitman v. Harrison, 1958 OK 141, ¶¶ 13–16, 327 P.2d 680 that:... ‘To create a reservation it must appear from the instrument that the grantor intended to and by appro......
-
Davis v. Andrews
...of warranty was discussed to some extent in Ladd v. Du Bose, Tex.Civ.App., 344 S.W.2d 476. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma in Whitman v. Harrison, 327 P.2d 680 construed an exception to the warranty, as did the Court of Appeals of Virginia in Steinman Coal Corp. v. Fleming, 145 Va. 731, 134 S......