Court Opinion

ID: 9538727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:40:44.153835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:07.320522
License: Public Domain

O’NEAL, J.
(dissenting). I dissent for I would read the contract as it is written. The question for our determination is whether, under the deed from Nicholson to Burkleo, the grantor reserved a royalty interest in oil and gas under 100 acres of land so long as Burkleo owned the land, or whether the reservation reserved such interest in perpetuity. The deed reads:
“It is understood that the grantors herein retain a one-half interest in all royalties received from any oil and gas leases the party of the second part may give on the above described land, but the grantee is to receive all rentals from said lease.”
Nicholson pleaded by answer that it was the intention of the grantors ancl grantees that the grantors reserve one-half interest in all minerals (which claim upon the trial was abandoned and a claim was made for a reservation of a royalty interest only). He further pleaded that if the deed does not properly express the understanding of said parties, it should be re-formed to express their true intention. Nicholson did not plead that the right to participate in the oil and gas royalties extended beyond Burkleo’s ownership of the land. The trial court, however, permitted Nicholson to testify over plaintiff’s objection and exception that he intended to reserve forever one-half interest of the royalties attributable to any oil and gas lease whether executed by Burkleo or his successors in interest.
It is inconceivable to conclude that the language of the reservation is either nebulous or shrouded in mystery. The grantor spelled out in clear and explicit language that he reserved the royalty interest from any oil and gas lease Burkleo might execute upon the land during his ownership thereof. If Nicholson had intended to reserve a royalty interest after Burkleo conveyed the land to others, that intent could have been expressed in very simple language. Burkleo continued to own the land from the date of its conveyance to him in 1916 to the year 1933, during which term of ownership Burkleo had not leased the land for oil and gas purposes. In the latter year Burkleo conveyed the land by fee-simple title without any reservations to the plaintiff in the instant case.
The majority opinion states:
“When we place ourselves in the positions of the parties when defendants executed their deed to Burkleo, it is unreasonable and absurd to assume that defendants would have reserved to themselves the right to receive one-half of the royalties accruing only in the event that their grantee, Burkleo, chose to execute an oil and gas lease while he held the land.”
The opinion assumes that Nicholson was ignorant of the scope and effect of the transaction involved, and- not competent to contract. Neither by allegation or proof is it shown that there was a mutual mistake of the parties, or that the conveyance was procured by *517fraud, or overreaching, or by any act of misfeasance or nonfeasance of Burkleo.
On the contrary, Nicholson testified that he and Burkleo had discussed the sale and purchase of the land on three occasions before agreeing upon its terms, and that after an agreement was reached he requested Burkleo to go with him to the office of his attorney where they explained the transaction to the attorney and requested him to draw the deed in question. The deed was prepared, signed and recorded.
The majority opinion assumes that the contract was improvidently made, and that Nicholson should not have made it. We are empowered to construe contracts, but I find no authority either in law or under principles of equity warranting our making contracts for litigants which might appear to us now to be more reasonable than the one actually made by them.
Nothing in the record leads me to conclude that Nicholson and his attorney were incompetent to enter into the character of a contract here involved. All of the evidence which sought to vary or change the terms of the contract was improperly admitted, and should not here.be considered for the reason that the agreement was free from latent ambiguity. The evidence, if admissible, is not sufficient to sustain the court’s judgment. We have frequently held that in order to justify a reformation of a deed the evidence must be full, clear, unequivocal and convincing as to the mistake and its mutuality. That the proof must establish the fact to a moral certainty and take the case out of the range of reasonable controversy.
A muniment of title as here established and not challenged for more than thirty years, which is evidenced by words so simple as to be free from any doubt or ambiguity, should not be lightly held for naught upon the assumption indulged in here that the grantor might have made a more advantageous contract.
Parties sui juris not only have the right to contract, but also the right to enter into the kind and character of a contract which they choose to make, so long as the contract does not run counter to the public policy of the state or its laws.
I cannot give my consent to the conclusions reached in the majority opinion. I find no latent ambiguity in the language employed, and I think we should therefore read the contract as it is written.