Case Title: Neil v. Jones

Citation: 497 So. 2d 797

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1986-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
497 So. 2d 797 (1986) Birdie Hall NEIL, et al. v. Glenda Fowler JONES. No. 55805. Supreme Court of Mississippi. August 27, 1986. Rehearing Denied December 3, 1986. James D. Minor, Oxford, for appellants. Ralph E. Rood, Gholson, Hicks & Nichols, Columbus, for appellee. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ. ROY NOBLE LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court: Birdie Hall Neil, et al., appeal from a judgment of the Chancery Court, Monroe County, Mississippi, reforming certain purported mineral conveyances and confirming title in Glenda Fowler Jones to an undivided one-half (1/2) of minerals in the lands involved, and cancelling the claims asserted by Birdie Hall Neil and the other complainants as clouds on the title of Glenda Fowler Jones. Birdie Hall Neil, et al., have appealed to this Court. We address the following assignments of error in the trial below: The appellee is an adult, resident citizen of Houston, Texas, and is the only child and sole heir-at-law of Allene H. Fowler, who died intestate September 20, 1967, and Walker Fowler, who died intestate December 10, 1970. The individual appellants constitute all the living heirs-at-law of Frank Hall, Annie Hall, Davie Hall and Lennie Hall, all of whom were adult, resident *798 citizens of Monroe County, Mississippi, at the times of their respective deaths. During the 1930's and in 1941, Walker Fowler, appellee's father, lived in Aberdeen, Mississippi, where he was a cotton buyer. In addition to buying cotton, Walker Fowler purchased oil, gas and mineral interests in Monroe and Calhoun Counties, Mississippi. Walker Fowler took title to the mineral conveyances in Allene H. Fowler, appellee's mother, as grantee in said conveyances. An undivided one-half (1/2) interest in oil, gas and minerals in three (3) tracts of land located in Monroe County are involved in this suit. They follow: Subsequent to her father's death, appellee executed oil, gas and mineral leases covering mineral interests which she owned, including the tracts hereinabove referred to. All three tracts involved in this suit were leased by appellee on August 30, 1974, to Charles L. Cherry & Associates of Denver, Colorado, by correct and definite descriptions. There was no claim against her undivided one-half (1/2) interests in the oil, gas and minerals on the tracts involved here, or problem, until a producing unit was developed on one of the tracts. The question then arose that the descriptions in the conveyances were vague and indefinite. Appellee then instituted suit to reform the legal descriptions and the conveyances and to reflect the intentions of the original parties thereto. The appellee and the appellants are heirs-at-law of and in privity with the original grantors and grantee. None of the parties are purchasers for value without notice. Appellants contend that the three instruments were leases rather than mineral deeds. The instruments were entitled "Warranty Royalty Deed" and the acknowledgments recited that "... the within named ____ who acknowledged that he signed and delivered the foregoing lease... ." However, the title of an instrument does not determine what it is, nor does the acknowledgment, misnomer though it be, invalidate the instrument. 25 A.L.R.2d 1151 (1952); Dundas v. Hitchcock, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 256, 13 L. Ed. 978 (1851); Hurt v. McCartney, 18 Ill. 129 (1856) and Ives v. Kimball, 1 Mich. 308 (1848). The language of the instruments here clearly indicate that they are deeds. The granting clause provided "... do hereby grant, sell and convey unto the said Allene H. Fowler and to her heirs and assigns forever, an undivided one-half (1/2) interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals, in, under and upon the following described lands: ..." The instruments were subject to an existing oil, gas *799 and mineral lease. The habendum clauses provided: Mounger v. Pittman, 235 Miss. 85, 108 So. 2d 565 (1959), dealt with a mineral reservation in a deed which contained the following language: 235 Miss. at 86, 108 So. 2d at 566. The lower court held that reservation to cover minerals in place and not to be a royalty reservation. This Court, in affirming, discussed the differences between royalty interests and minerals in place in the following language: 235 Miss. at 86-87, 108 So. 2d at 566. See also Allen v. Boykin, 199 Miss. 417, 24 So. 2d 748 (1946); Harris v. Griffith, 210 So. 2d 629 (Miss. 1968). We are of the opinion that the instruments here were not leases or non-participating royalty deeds, but were conveyances of an undivided one-half (1/2) interest in minerals in place. The more serious question is whether or not the deed instruments are void because of vague and indefinite descriptions. It is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between tax deeds and private deeds. Wilson v. Clark, 278 So. 2d 250 (Miss. 1973), held that the attempted conveyance of a given number of acres in a larger tract, without specifying where they are located within the larger tract, is void for uncertainty of description. However, the Court further stated that: 278 So. 2d at 253-254. In order for a deed instrument to constitute a valid conveyance, it is not necessary that a description of the land be contained in the deed, if it contains sufficient information so that by reference to some document or instrument referred to in the deed, a true and accurate description can be ascertained. Robert E. Ratliff Co. v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 400 So. 2d 1211 (Miss. 1981); McManus v. Wilson, 138 Miss. 1, 102 So. 543 (1925); McLendon v. Ravesies, 178 Miss. 428, 173 So. 303 (1937). In the deed instruments here, there is no reference to other deeds or documents by which the land may be more specifically identified. However, the record and briefs reflect that appellants' predecessors in title, from whom they inherited their interests in the lands, were vested with title only to lands in Monroe County involved in this suit. Therefore, the interests acquired by appellee are easily found and determined from the records in the office of the Chancery Clerk, Monroe County, Mississippi. A deed will not be held void for uncertainty of description if, by any reasonable construction, it can be upheld. McLendon v. Ravesies, supra. In determining whether or not reformation may be granted, the chancellor was required to determine the intent of the parties at the time of execution of the mineral deeds. He was entitled to consider the real property actually owned by the grantors at the time of the conveyance. Reformation is the vehicle by which lands owned by grantors at the time the instruments are executed are correctly described. Wofford v. Wofford, 244 Miss. 442, 142 So. 2d 188 (1962). In deciding the question in the case sub judice, the chancellor said: "It is my opinion that the intent of the parties has been clearly demonstrated, and that the plaintiff is entitled to reformation of the instruments as sought by her complaint. The counter-complaint is denied." We think that the record and the law fully support the chancellor in his conclusion. There being no reversible error in the trial below, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. WALKER, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.