Williams v. McCann
| Decision Date | 24 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 40077,40077 |
| Citation | 385 P.2d 788 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | Elsie WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Julia McCANN et al., Defendants in Error. |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where the equities are equal the one holding the first deed filed for record is recognized as the owner of the land conveyed.
2. Where the only reference to an alleged mineral reservation in the deed is in the exception in the habendum clause, which is as follows: 'Except the Mineral or Oil Rights to said lands,' the deed conveys a fee simple title to the premises and contains no words reserving the mineral rights to the grantor.
3. A quitclaim deed is as effectual in conveying the title of the grantor as is a warranty deed, and one can be a bona fide purchaser under the former as under the latter.
4. One who purchases real estate without notice, actual or constructive, of an outstanding unrecorded conveyance thereof to another party, is entitled to rely on the records, and if there is nothing on the records to put him on notice, and the existence of facts and circumstances which would cause an ordinarily prudent man to make additional inquiry is not shown, he is a bona fide purchaser, and is protected against such outstanding conveyance.
5. A grantee, taking deed, whether in form of quitclaim or of grant, bargain, and sale, without notice of grantor's outstanding conveyance of described premises to another or his obligation to make such conveyance or create lien on premises, nor notice of facts which would lead to knowledge of such conveyance or equity if followed, up, is entitled to protection as bona fide purchaser on showing that he paid fair stipulated consideration for claim or interest designated.
6. The right of alienation is an inherent inseparable quality of the fee simple estate.
Appeal from District Court of Latimer County; Clyde M. Followell, Judge.
From a judgment in favor of Defendants in a quiet title suit involving the mineral estate, Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Bailey & Whitlock, Sam F. Whitlock, Norman, for plaintiffs in error.
Alpheus Varner, Poteau, for LeFlore County Gas & Elec. Co.
Claud Briggs, Oklahoma City, for L. H. Charney and Susanne Charney.
Fisher Ames, Oklahoma City, for Midwest Oil Corp., Pan American Petroleum Corp., Sabine Royalty Corp.; Varner & Miller, Poteau, Ames, Daugherty, Bynum, Black & Rogers, Oklahoma City, of counsel, for defendants in error.
Crowe, Boxley, Dunlevy, Thwoatt, Swinford & Johnson, Don Emery, Gordon Watts, Oklahoma City, William M. Taylor, J. C. Farmer, John B. Durfee, Carl Livingston, John Rogers, Tulsa, amici curiae.
Parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court or by name.
Elsie and Harold Williams filed suit to quiet title to sixty acres of land in Latimer County, Oklahoma, described as the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and S 1/2 of N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and S 1/2 of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/2 and S 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 15, Township 6 North, Range 22 East. They base their claim to ownership of this land upon a deed dated the 31st of July, 1923, but not filed for record in the office of the County Clerk of Latimer County until the 25th day of August, 1930. The grantors in this deed were J. A. and Edna Patton, husband and wife.
The plaintiffs named numerous defendants but the lawsuit resolves itself down to the question of whether a deed to the same land issued by the same grantors to H. Charney or the deed to S. E. Williams should prevail.
The Charney deed was dated February 13, 1926, and was filed for record on March 27, 1926.
There was no evidence in the record that H. Charney had any notice either actual or constructive of the deed from the Pattons to Williams. In McAllister v. Clark, 91 Okl. 205, 217 P. 178, we held that where two deeds had been issued covering the same tract of land to different grantees and that the first grantee had not placed his deed of record and the second grantee had searched the record and found no record of the filing of the first deed and thereupon filed his deed, the law will declare the party holding the first deed filed for record to be the owner of the land. This case has been followed in Bates v. Rogers, 178 Okl. 164, 62 P.2d 481 and Elsey v. Shaw, 199 Okl. 698, 190 P.2d 439. See also Colby v. Hayes, 186 Okl. 283, 97 P.2d 65.
The plaintiffs concede that H. Charney obtained title to the surface of the land in question because of the priority of the filing of his deed but they challenge the right of his heirs and assigns to the minerals under the land in question because of words in the habendum clause of the Charney deed which were as follows:
'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 the Mineral or Oil Rights to said lands.'
In the Journal Entry of Judgment of the trial court this language is found:
'* * * and the attorneys of record for the plaintiffs and said defendants and cross-petitioners having stated and agreed in open Court that while said defendants have raised other defenses which will have to be considered if such motions are overruled, the plaintiffs' case must stand or fall upon the interpretation of the language 'except the mineral or oil rights to said lands' in the habendum clause of the Warranty Deed from J. A. Patton, et ux., to H. Charney, the same being 'EXHIBIT A' to the answer and cross-petition of said defendants, and that if said language should be interpreted as an exception to the warranty and not as a reservation of the oil and mineral rights, then the plaintiffs have no cause of action, and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, specifically finds that the language 'except the mineral or oil rights to said lands' contained in that certain Warranty Deed dated February 13, 1926, from J. A. Patton and Edna Patton, husband and wife, to H. Charney conveying the following described real estate:
* * *
* * *
'recorded March 27, 1926, in Book 22 at Page 42 of the records in the office of the County Clerk of Latimer County, Oklahoma, (which said Warranty Deed is attached as 'EXHIBIT A' to and incorporated in the answer and cross-petition of said defendants), constitutes an exception to the warranty and does not constitute a reservation of the oil or mineral rights or of any other rights and that the full fee simple title passed to the grantee by virtue of said Warranty Deed.'
We think ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. State ex rel. Wildlife Conservation Com'n In and For State
...itself."26 Colby v. Hayes, 186 Okl. 283, 97 P.2d 65, 67 [1940]; Bates v. Rogers, 178 Okl. 164, 62 P.2d 481, 484 [1936]; Williams v. McCann, Okl., 385 P.2d 788, 789 [1963].27 We need not answer here the question whether the State's title is vulnerable to an attack by others. The only persons......
-
Mashburn v. Arzate (In re Arzate)
...matters which would put a purchaser on inquiry, a bona fide purchaser for value will take good title to the property.’ Williams v. McCann, 385 P.2d 788, 791 (Okla. 1963). However, ‘[u]nder Oklahoma law, a purchaser of land takes the property with constructive notice of whatever appears in t......
-
Mashburn v. Arzate (In re Arzate)
...matters which would put a purchaser on inquiry, a bona fide purchaser for value will take good title to the property.’ Williams v. McCann, 385 P.2d 788, 791 (Okla. 1963). However, ‘[u]nder Oklahoma law, a purchaser of land takes the property with constructive notice of whatever appears in t......
-
O'Brien v. Village Land Co., 89SC241
...v. United States, 291 F.2d 161 (8th Cir.1961); First Nat'l Bank of Denver v. Allard, 182 Colo. 297, 513 P.2d 455 (1973); Williams v. McCann, 385 P.2d 788 (Okl.1963). Because the face of the Village Land-Henderson deed purported to convey all mineral interests except the one-half expressly r......
-
CHAPTER 3 WHEN TO GO BEYOND RECORD TITLE - THE DUTY TO INQUIRE
...The majority of states hold that the receipt of a quitclaim deed does not prevent a grantee from being a BFP. See: Williams v. McCann, 385 P.2d 788 (Okla. 1963); N.D. Cent. Code, § 47-19-41 . A minority of states take a different view and hold that the receipt of a quitclaim deed puts a gra......
-
CHAPTER 5 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE--A MULTI-STATE PERSPECTIVE
...discussion of the problem see The Colorado Recording Act: Race-Notice or Pure Notice, 51 Denver L.J. 115 (1974); Williams v. McCann, 385 P.2d 788 (Okla. 1963) An example of a "race-notice" statute is Utah Code Annotated § 57-3-3 which provides that: Each document not recorded as provided in......
-
CHAPTER 3 TITLE EXAMINATION OF FEE LANDS
...65 Okla. 74, 162 P.2d 1124, construed the statute to include the concept of the equitable doctrine of BFP. Also see Williams v. McCann, 385 P.2d 788 (Okla. 1963). Texas (Notice Type) Article 6627, V.A.T.S. When sales, etc., to be void unless registered (previous statute) All bargains, sales......
-
CHAPTER 2 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE: A MULTI-STATE PERSPECTIVE
...discussion of the problem see The Colorado Recording Act: Race-Notice or Pure Notice, 51 Denver L.J. 115 (1974); Williams v. McCann, 385 P.2d 788 (Okla. 1963) An example of a "race-notice" statute is Utah Code Annotated § 57-3-3 which provides that: Each document not recorded as provided in......