Court Opinion

ID: 9770474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:06:07.759071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:17.645552
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
In a further examination of the record in response to vigorous motions filed by the respective litigants, we find we were in: error in our former Opinion that the trial court had held that there was no evidence to support the contentions of appellants with respect to the division order.
No. 11 of the court’s original findings, of fact reads: “I find that the plaintiffs did not ratify or recognize the interest claimed by the defendants or defendants’ predecessor in title.”
Defendants filed a request for additional findings in which No. 6 reads as follows,: “I find that the lands- and mineral estate here in controversy was placed in: a unit for the production of gas on September 1, 1945, which unit was designated. Carthage Gas Unit No. 17 Wall.” And No. 8, to-wit: “I find that a gas division order was executed by plaintiffs on June 11, 1946, which said division order allocated to plaintiffs their share as mineral owners under another tract in this unit and to defendants’ predecessor in title, Neal Powers, the interest -in controversy.”
The trial'court in response to above request did file additional -findings of fact as follows: “(6) Defendants’ request for additional finding No. 6 is refused and denied for the same: .is immaterial and calls for a mere statement - of evidence and tends to conflict with the court’s original findings of fact; but I do find that there is no evidence that, the defendants or their predecessors in title authorized the formation and consolidation of said unit, nor is there any evidence that the operator of the leasehold estate holds title under any oil,, gas or minenil. lease from the defendants or their predecessors in title. I find, that the operator of the leasehold estate in said unit produced minerals- in controversy under and by virtue .of- an oil, gas and mineral lease emanating through plaintiffs’ title to the land in controversy. I find further that - no oil, or gas well was ever drilled or located on the land in controversy.” ■ ■ :
“(8) Defendants . request for additional finding No. 8 is refused and denied- for the reason that the same is ■ contrary to the evidence, is unsupported by the evidence and calls-for a mere statement of evidence and the same tends to conflict with the court’s original findings of fact; but I do find that said Division Order- allocated nothing; and did not designate any particular tract of land with reference to any individual and the - same was only an instrument betweén the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs’ -lessee." That the plaintiffs executed the instrument" in regard to a distinct tract of land to that in controversy arid with no‘intent to recognize or warrant the title of-any other person’s interest in the unit.”
. .Although-all the foregoing .are designated in .the transcript as finding?; of fact, some are conclusions of law. In our effort to reconcile some of the probable inconsistencies in above recitals as a whole, it is thought that the conclusions of law therein expressed are grounded on other *214conclusions of law, namely, that plaintiffs had proved a superior title to that asserted by defendants under the Langley to Smiley mineral deed. It is now our conclusion that the trial court has found as a fact from the evidence “that the plaintiffs executed the instrument in regard to a distinct tract of land -to that in controversy and with no intent to recognize * * * the title of any other person’s interest in the unit.”
“It is settled law that ratification involves the intention to ratify.” Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Jeffrey, Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 374, 377 and case's therein cited. Defendants in their answer put in issue this matter of ratification which involved the question of plaintiffs’ intent to recognize defendants’ claim. A fact issue was so raised. Olvey v. Jones, 137 Tex. 639, 156 S.W.2d 977, 981.
“Upon an appeal * * * every reasonable presumption will be . indulged in, favor of the findings.,of the trial court.” 3 Tex.Jur. 1059. “In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of the court the evidence will be considered in the light ■ most favorable to the findings.”' 3 T.J., p. 1063.
We are unable to determine from the record what portions of Mrs. Wall’s testimony was considered by the trial court after several exchanges over the admissibility of her testimony in regard to the execution of the division order. The findings of .the trial court would indicate that the court did consider in part her explanation that she thought the division order related to her 30 and 10 acre tracts, of which she owned one-half, and that she “would not have signed that, in any other way that would disqualify me from coming back later and try to reclaim a larger acreage”; “not intended on the 70 acre, no sir; an entirely different tract.” Nonparticipating royalty deeds executed by Mrs. Wall and ’her son subsequent to the execution of the division .order and prior to this litigation purports to convey to others a 5 royalty acre and a 7,2337- acre interest in the 77.9 acre tract.
Mrs. Wall for herself and as' guardian for her son executed the division order on June 10, 1946, and-the son after reaching his májoríty signed .it August 16, 1946. The record does not reflect when Powers may have signed it. The record reflects that the division order was executed in séveral sections, and when combined made up the division order. According to a deed in evidence, dated April 12, 1946, or about two months prior to the date Mrs. Wall executed the division order, Powers had conveyed to W. G. Phillips ½ of his ½ claim or a-½ royalty interest, in which after describing by metes and bounds three trácts, closes with the recitation, — “said tracts of land,' as above described, purport to contain 61¼ acres, 25 acres, 3 acres, 10' acre.s and 77.9 acres of land, but by actual survey contains 57.67 acres, 26.24 acres, 3.08. acres, 9.68 acres and 73.23 acres of land,, réspectively. The division order recites-Neal Powers’ interest to be %x 42.995 in the 645.46 acre unit. Phillips did. not execute above division order. Such documentary evidence raises the question what interest in what lands did this ⅛ x 42.995' have reference to and would be material on the issue if plaintiffs intended -to ratify and if so, what interest in what lands.
Above observations of the record,, when weighed under the rule applicable here, will not warrant this court to disturb, the fact finding of the trial court “that plaintiffs had executed the division order with no intent to recognize * * * the-title of appellants.” The former judgment-of this court which reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the causé-is set aside, and the judgment of the trial* court 'is affirmed. The motion of appellants for a reversal and rendition in favor-of defendants has been duly considered: and is respectfully, overruled;