Court Opinion

ID: 9636196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:19:14.761765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:42.815333
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Although neither side has complained of the matter, we find that originally we misconstrued part of the land description in the royalty deed. Contrary to our own bracketed representation in the copy, the deed did not describe the 15-acre tract of land. Instead, it described the nine acres twice. The portion of the description omitted in copying the deed into the original opinion was the following:
“Bounded on the North by the Jos. Riviere 10 acre tract and the Harrison and Pickett 33 acre tract;
“on the East by the said Harrison and Pickett 33 acre tract;
“on the South by the Sun Company Tract out of the Shade tract in the Davis Hinchey League, the north line of this Sun Co., tract being also the South line of the M. G. White League;
“on the West by 6 acres of land in which the minerals were conveyed by these grantors to R. G. Bartlow by deed dated April 23rd, 1919, of record in Volume 78 page 532 of the Deed Records of said County, the land in which the Vie royalty interest is hereby conveyed is also described by metes and bounds as follows:”
We also find that in writing the original opinion we lost sight of the fact that the parties had stipulated that the royalty deed was prepared by one of the persons for whom the royalty was purchased.
Upon the basis of the stipulation, appellants in their motion for rehearing, challenge the soundness of the assertion, made in the original opinion, that there “is nothing to render inapplicable the general rule that requires that the deed be construed in the light most favorable to the grantee.” They contend, of course, that the language of the deed is in fact the language of the grantees and that any doubt regarding its meaning should therefore be resolved against the grantees and those claiming under the grantees. They cite no authority in support of their contention.
Being of the opinion that the disposition of the case must be the same under either theory, we refrain from passing upon the law question appellants have raised. However, we doubt that appellants’ contention is correct. Expressions to be found in *113Gladys City Oil, Gas & Mfg. Co. v. Right of Way Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W. 171, 178, would perhaps support it. But if we correctly interpret its opinion in the same case, 106 Tex. 94, 157 S.W. 737, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 268, the Supreme Court did not agree with the Court of Civil Appeals on the matter. The case of McBride v. Hutson, 157 Tex. 632, 306 S.W.2d 888, tends, perhaps, to support' the contention, but is distinguishable on its facts. The fiduciary relationship of attorney and client existed between the grantor and the grantee who prepared the deed. The great weight of authority, however, suggests that the law is not as appellants claim it to be. It has been repeatedly and unqualifiedly said that the language of a deed is the language of the grantor. Curdy v. Stafford, 88 Tex. 120, 30 S.W. 551; Garrett v. Dils Co., 157 Tex. 92, 299 S.W.2d 904; Couch v. Southern Methodist University, Tex.Com.App., 10 S.W.2d 973. And the cases are legion in which it has been unqualifiedly said that the language of a deed is to be construed in the light most favorable to the grantee. See Cartwright v. Trueblood, 90 Tex. 535, 39 S.W. 930; Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Harrison, 146 Tex. 216, 205 S.W.2d 355; Hoffman v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., Tex. Com.App., 273 S.W. 828; Allen v. Creighton, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 47, er. ref.; Clemmens v. Kennedy, Tex.Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 321, error refused. In the case last cited, the deed was prepared by the grantee’s attorney. In the case preceding it, Allen v. Creighton, the grantee’s father-in-law, an attorney, prepared the deed and also supplied legal services as consideration for the deed. And it is a fair assumption that in Hoffman v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. the deed was prepared by the grantee’s attorney. Additional cases of the kind could likely be found, but the research would not be justified. As previously stated, we find is unnecessary to decide the question that is involved.
The Riviere lease covered all of the fifteen acres from which the nine acres described in the deed were carved. Actually, therefore, unless upon the theory that it was inserted to make clear that the deed was intended to pass title to one-half the royalty that might accrue under the lease from the nine acres, the intention clause cannot he harmonized with the rest of the deed. It states an intention to convey one-half of the one-eighth royalty reserved in the Riviere lease, whereas the rest of the deed clearly evidences an intention to convey a ½6 royalty interest in a specific nine acres of land. Any thought that the deed would have been prepared as it was if it had only been intended to convey one-half of the royalty reserved in the lease must be rejected. Especially so, since such a purpose could have been accomplished by simple assignments
Appellants have advanced one argument having to do with the state of the law at the time when the royalty deed was made. We have considered it, but we are not moved by it.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.