Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-Kerlin-v-Sauceda-Tex-2008-Concurrence-by-Brister-royalties-estoppel-by-deed-theory.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:33:38+00:00

Document:
Justice Brister, joined by Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, and Justice Willett, concurring.
construction would face serious constitutional problems.
but not if the plaintiff serves the Transportation Commission Chairman?
straighten a few of these out.
followed — collapse in a heap.
this Court in State v. Balli.
held in Padre Island was extinguished in 1928, ten years before they met Gilbert Kerlin.
deeds but few quitclaim deeds do.
title, so estoppel by deed could never apply.
courts below erred in holding they created title in the heirs.
claims arising through the Balli heirs.
outright; he could neither have made nor settled the heirs’ tiny mineral claim because he did not own it.
Like any other buyer, Kerlin owed his sellers (the heirs) no fiduciary duty after buying their interests.
as Texas law has long recognized, leasing minerals imposes duties that selling them does not.
theirs. There is no such duty.
assignors (the heirs). Because the heirs had been named and served by publication in Havre v.
attorney, he owed them no fiduciary duty or duty to disclose anything that occurred.
statement of Texas law. I would disabuse them of that notion.
be solved in terms of jurisdiction over the person.”) (Pope, J., dissenting).
 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.062(a).
which the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is made final by statute.”).
 Apparently 12 deeds were signed but only 11 were recorded as one appeared to be a duplicate.
See 164 S.W.3d 892, 905.
and/or gas or other minerals . . . ,” yielding a 1/512th royalty interest.
acquired by inheritance from his uncle, the Priest Nicolas Balli.”).
 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329(a).
 Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills & Other Donative Transfers § 6.1, comt. f (2003).
quitclaim”); see also Restatement (First) of Property §§ 166, 167 (noting that “a quitclaim deed . . .
affords no foundation for either an estoppel by deed or an equitable transfer”); 1 H. Williams & C.
attempted transfer by warranty deed.”).
 See Geodyne Energy Income Prod. P’ship I-E v. Newton Corp., 161 S.W.3d 482, 486 (Tex.
 Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady, 811 S.W.2d 931, 938 (Tex. 1991).
 Scurlock Oil Co. v. Smithwick, 724 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tex. 1986).
agreement made the basis of the suit.”).
that he exacts for himself.”); Schlittler v. Smith, 101 S.W.2d 543, 545 (1937).
 In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735, 744 (Tex. 2003).
 See HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881, 889 (Tex. 1998) (citing Danciger Oil & Ref.
of time. That is not the case with conveyances of mineral interests.” (citation omitted)).
 Tex. Mach. & Equip. Co. v. Gordon Knox Oil & Exploration Co., 442 S.W.2d 315, 316 (Tex. 1969).
Marie Stella Kenedy Mem’l Found., 162 S.W.3d 689, 692 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, pet.

References: v. 
 v.

 § 17
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.