Woods v. Sims
| Citation | 154 Tex. 59,273 S.W.2d 617 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. A-4717,A-4717 |
| Parties | J. D. WOODS et al., Petitioners, v. S. W. SIMS, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Nelson, Montgomery, Robertson & Sellers, Wichita Falls, for petitioners.
Cecil Murphy, Gainesville, for respondent.
This case involves the construction of three mineral deeds to determine the interests acquired by the respective grantees in the royalty payable under an existing oil and gas lease, the land having been surveyed after the execution and delivery of the deeds and found to contain more acreage than was apparently contemplated by the parties at the time the deeds were given.
On January 18, 1941, T. L. Miller and wife executed and delivered to S. W. Sims an oil and gas lease on a tract of land in Grayson County, the land being described in the lease as follows:
The lease provided for the payment to lessors of the usual one-eighth royalties on oil and gas produced from the leased premises. The leasehold interest was acquired by Magnolia Petroleum Company, which farmed out to Kay Kimbell all of the land except the south 80 acres. It is stipulated that both Magnolia Petroleum Company and Kay Kimbell are producing oil from their respective parts of the land and that the lease is in full force and effect.
On January 18, 1941, T. L. Miller and wife also conveyed to S. W. Sims an undivided one-half interest in the oil, gas and other minerals in and under the land covered by the oil and gas lease. There is no question regarding the legal effect of this mineral deed.
In March, 1941, S. W. Sims executed three mineral deeds, the terms of which give rise to this controversy. The grantees in the three deeds are: (1) Pearl M. Kuehn, (2) Laura Harrison and F. E. Case, and (3) J. D. Woods. In each instrument the granting clause purports to convey an undivided 25/200 interest in the minerals, and the land description is the same as that used in the oil and gas lease. It is recognized by the parties that the provisions of the three deeds are substantially similar and that the instruments should be construed alike. The following are the material provisions of the deed to J. D. Woods:
'* * * have granted, sold, conveyed, assigned and delivered, and by these presents do grant, sell, convey, assign and deliver unto the said Grantee, an undivided 25/200 interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under, and that may be produced from the following described land situated in Grayson County, Texas, towit: (Land described as in oil and gas lease).
'(It being the intention of the grantor to convey and of the Grantee to Purchase an undivided Twenty-five acre mineral interest in and to all of the oil, gas, and other minerals in and under the above described land.)
'Together with the right of ingress and egress at all times for the purpose of mining, drilling and exploring said land for oil, gas and other minerals, and removing the same therefrom.
'Said land being now under an oil and gas lease executed in favor of Magnolia Petroleum Company, it is understood and agreed that this sale is made subject to the terms of said lease and/or any other valid lease covering same, but covers and includes 25/200 of all of the oil royalty and gas rental or royalty due and to be paid under the terms of said lease, in so far as it covers the above described land.
'It is understood and agreed that 25/200 of the money rentals, which may be paid, on the above described land, to extend the term within which a well may be begun under the terms of said lease, is to be paid to the said Grantee; and, in event that the above described lease for any reason becomes canceled or forfeited, then and in that event, Grantee shall own 25/200 of all oil, gas and other minerals in and under said lands, together with a like 25/200 interest in all bonuses paid, and all royalties and rentals provided for in future oil, gas and mineral leases covering the above described lands.
'To have and to hold * * *.'
R. C. Lipscomb and Harold D. Herndon each acquired one-fifth of the interest conveyed by the deed to Pearl M. Kuehn. Laura Harrison, who is now Laura Harrison Wiser, and F. E. Case executed an instrument stipulating that they were equal owners of the interests conveyed by the deed to them.
In 1951, after the execution and delivery of all of the above-mentioned deeds, the land covered by the oil and gas lease and the mineral deeds was surveyed and found to contain 226.88 acres. There then arose a controversy between the petitioners, J. D Woods, Laura Harrison Wiser, R. C. Lipscomb and Harold D. Herndon, and the respondent, S. W. Sims, regarding the ownership of the minerals in place and also the ownership of the royalty payable under the existing lease. S. W. Sims contended that each of the three mineral deeds conveyed 25/226.88 of the minerals in place and a like interest in the royalty payable under the lease, and that petitioners together own 47.5/226.88 of such minerals and royalty. Petitioners, contending that each deed conveyed 25/200 of the minerals and royalty, insisted that they together own 47.5/200 of such minerals and royalty. Sinclair Oil & Gas Company, which was purchasing oil produced from a portion of the land, withheld the 6.384/226.88 of the royalty in dispute. Petitioners thereupon instituted suit against Sinclair for the royalty so withheld. Sinclair interpleaded S. W. Sims and deposited in the registry of the court the sum of $867.42, the amount of royalty in dispute, and was discharged. The suit then became an action between petitioners and respondent to determine the ownership of the fund and of future royalty payments.
The trial court held that the petitioners own an aggregate of 47.5/200 of the royalty payable under the lease, awarded to petitioners the $867.42 in the registry of the court, but held that petitioners were entitled to only 47.5/226.88 of the minerals in the event the oil and gas lease should terminate. The Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. Union Producing Company
...frequently, most recently by the Texas Supreme Court in Andretta v. West, Tex.1967, 415 S.W.2d 638, 640-641. See also Woods v. Sims, 1954, 154 Tex. 59, 273 S.W.2d 617, 621; Richardson v. Hart, 1945, 143 Tex. 392, 185 S.W.2d 563, 565; Grelling v. Allen, Tex. Civ.App.1949, 218 S.W.2d 896, 898......
-
Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins
...to conclude that the instrument is irreconcilably 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 ......
-
FDIC v. Eagle Properties, Ltd.
...444 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1969); Southland Royalty Company v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation, 378 S.W.2d 50 (Tex.1964); Woods v. Sims, 154 Tex. 59, 273 S.W.2d 617 (1954); Young v. De La Garza, 368 S.W.2d 667 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1963, no After applying these rules of construction, the Court c......
-
In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative
...330, 332 (Tex.1983) (court may strike down a portion of a contract where "there is irreconcilable conflict"); Woods v. Sims, 154 Tex. 59, 273 S.W.2d 617, 620-21 (1954) (court "will not strike down any portion [of a contract] unless there is an irreconcilable conflict wherein one part of the......
-
CHAPTER 11 ASSIGNMENTS AND CONVEYANCES
...Price v. Atlantic Refining Co., 447 P.2d 509 (N.M. 1968). [97] 273 S.W. 828 (Tex. Comm'n. App. 1925). [98] See, e.g., Woods v. Sims, 273 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1954); Hinkle v. Gauntt, 206 P.2d 1001 (Okla. 1949). [99] See, e.g., Alford v. Krum, S.W.2d 870 (Tex. 1984) (deciding that granting claus......
-
CHAPTER 16 WHY TEXAS TITLES ARE DIFFERENT
...after the expiration of the existing lease. Hoffman v. Magnolia, 273 S.W. 828 (Tex. Comm. App. - 1925, holding approved); Woods v. Sims, 273 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1954). (b) Repugnant to the grant rule - the granting clause will control when other provisions of the deed conflict with what the gr......
-
CHAPTER 12 MINERAL AND LEASEHOLD CONVEYANCE ISSUES
...referred to as "Nibert"]. [5] Williams & Meyers, supra note 3, Vol. 8 at 606. [6] Id. at § 320.2, n. 9; see. e.g. Woods v. Sims, 273 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1954). [7] Williams & Meyers, supra note 3, at § 320.2, n. 9. [8] Id. at § 320.2. [9] See Willis H. Ellis, Rethinking the Duhig Doctrine, 29 ......