York v. Kenilworth Oil Co., 6188
| Decision Date | 05 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 6188,6188 |
| Citation | 614 S.W.2d 468 |
| Parties | William E. YORK, Appellant, v. KENILWORTH OIL COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal by plaintiff York from summary judgment denying him recovery of title and possession of the oil and gas in and under 197.105 acres of land in Medina County. 1
Plaintiff York sued defendants Kenilworth Oil Company, et al, alleging he was and is the owner in fee simple and entitled to possession of all the oil, gas and other minerals in and under 197.105 acres of land in Medina County (a described 81.105 acre tract and a described 116 acre tract); that defendants disputed his claim; prevented him from leasing; and that Kenilworth had extracted some $50,000 worth of oil, gas and minerals from his land. Plaintiff sought judgment: for title and possession to the oil, gas and other minerals under the 197.105 acres; that his title be quieted from all claims of defendants; and for damages for depletion of his mineral estate.
Defendants answered by a plea of not guilty, a general denial, and plead that the oil and gas interest plaintiff sues for was vested in a person named Mame Adams, was reserved by her and thereafter acquired by defendants. Defendants prayed that plaintiff take nothing.
Thereafter defendants moved for summary judgment that plaintiff was not the owner in fee simple of the oil and gas under the 197.105 acres; and plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment quieting title in plaintiff to all the oil, gas and other minerals in the 197.105 acres, subject only to any "outstanding rights, if any there be," under the Mame Adams' reservation.
The trial court rendered summary judgment denying recovery of plaintiff of title and possession of the oil and gas under the 197.105 acres; vested title to the oil and gas in such land in defendants; and granted the motion of plaintiff in part vesting him with ownership of all minerals other than oil and gas in and on the tract.
Plaintiff appeals on 3 points asserting the trial court erred: 1) in granting summary judgment denying plaintiff recovery of title and possession of the oil and gas under the land; 2) in granting summary judgment vesting title to the oil and gas in such land in defendants; and 3) in failing to grant summary judgment that the oil and gas under the land is owned by plaintiff subject to the rights of defendants under a certain oil and gas lease, and to any rights outstanding under the Mame Adams' reservation.
On January 11, 1946, Mame M. Adams by warranty deed conveyed the land here involved to Jay E. Adams. Such conveyance reserved to the "grantor, her heirs, devisees and assigns all the oil and gas (but not including other minerals)" for 5 years after the death of the grantor unless oil and gas is being produced in paying quantities in which event the reservation shall expire when production in paying quantities shall cease. At the expiration of this reservation all oil and gas not removed shall vest in the grantee, (his) heirs and assigns.
On January 4, 1951, Jay E. Adams by warranty deed conveyed 81.105 described acres of the land to Carleton W. Adams, subject to the reservation of all oil and gas as retained in his deed from Mame Adams.
On December 28, 1951, Jay E. Adams by warranty deed conveyed 116 described acres of the land to Marcia B. Adams, wife of Carleton W. Adams, subject to the reservation of Mame Adams of all oil and gas as retained in his deed from Mame Adams.
The parties have stipulated plaintiff and defendants hold under Carleton W. Adams and wife Marcia B. Adams who are the parties' common source of title.
Carleton W. Adams and wife Marcia B. Adams on November 5, 1957, executed an oil, gas and mineral lease on the land here involved to Carleton W. Adams, Jr.
On February 28, 1961, Carleton Adams, Jr. assigned such oil, gas and mineral lease to plaintiff William E. York.
On September 30, 1961, Carleton W. Adams and wife Marcia B. Adams by warranty deed conveyed the (81.105 acres and the 116 acres) land to William E. York, subject to any oil, gas and mineral lease of record; and while there was no express mention of the Mame Adams' reservation, plaintiff concedes the lease was being held by production as of the date of this deed, and that the Mame Adams' reservation was in effect.
On June 19, 1964, William E. York by warranty deed conveyed the land (the 81.105 acres and the 116 acres) to Mrs. Carleton W. Adams, Sr. (being the same person as Marcia B. Adams), "save and except for all oil, gas and other minerals".
Both parties concede the record establishes that there was production in paying quantities on June 19, 1964, and that the Mame Adams' reservation and the lease were in effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ely v. Briley
...entire bundle of property rights accorded a mineral estate. French, 896 S.W.2d at 797; see also York v. Kenilworth Oil Co., 614 S.W.2d 468, 471 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (reservation of mineral interest reserved "possibility of reverter"). Similarly, an unqualified reserv......
-
Monroe v. Scott
...782 (Tex.Comm'n App.1923); Bagby v. Bredthauer, 627 S.W.2d 190, 197 (Tex.App.--Austin 1981, no writ); York v. Kenilworth, 614 S.W.2d 468, 471 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Murphy at 130. In Texas, the grant of an interest in land "subject to" a defeasible term interest trans......
-
Peveto v. Starkey
...royalty interest in fee simple determinable, and Jones held the possibility of reverter. York v. Kenilworth Oil Co., 614 S.W.2d 468, 471 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1981, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Caruthers v. Leonard, 254 S.W. 779, 782 (Com.App.1923). Since a possibility of reverter is not subject to t......
-
Bagby v. Bredthauer
...by Kuehn created a fee simple determinable in Kuehn and a possibility of reverter in Gerdes. York v. Kenilworth Oil Co., 614 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1981, writ ref'd n. r. e.). When Gerdes conveyed the land to Bredthauer by the former's deed of general warranty which did not exclude o......