Court Opinion

ID: 9827245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:19:21.088643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:27.343057
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees have presented a vigorous motion *for rehearing in which they assert that this is not a suit for a title to “land” but affects “the ⅞ oil and gas lease.” And further it is stated in said motion “that this is not a suit to cancel a lease, but only the transfer from H. C. Miller to Olsan Brothers.” We recognize this last statement in our opinion wherein we said “As said before, plaintiffs’ action, though in form in trespass to try title, is one of cancellation of an assignment of an oil and gas lease for failure to develop.” Appellees’ contention seems to be that they brought this suit to cancel the assignment of an oil and gas lease from H. C. Miller .to Olsan Bros, covering the land in controversy as assignors rather than as owners of the property by inheritance from their deceased sister, Mrs. Daisy M. Bradford, the original lessor in the lease to Joiner. If this were true, then appellees would have no interest in the subject-matter of the suit for the reason that H. C. Miller, by his assignment to Olsan Bros., conveyed all the interest he had in the land as is plainly shown by the assignment itself, introduced in evidence by appellees. There is no condition in the ■assignment authorizing a reversion of the leasehold interest under any circumstances to H. C. Miller as assignor of the lease to Olsan Bros. Appellees’ petition alleged no grounds and contained no prayer for cancellation of the assignment of the lease. No facts were introduced in evidence authorizing cancellation of the assignment. There are facts in evidence tending to authorize a cancellation or forfeiture of the original lease. In such circumstances the leasehold estate would not revert to the assignors as such of the lease, but it would revert to the original lessor or those entitled to her estate. So we conclude here, as in our original opinion, that the only standing appellees could possibly have had in the trial court was as owners of the land covered by said lease through inheritance from their deceased sister, Mrs. Daisy M'. Bradford. Our conclusion in this regard is strengthened by the allegations in appel-lees’ original petition wherein it is stated that they, appellees, are the owners' of the land in controversy; that they were successors in title to same from Mrs. Daisy M. Bradford; their prayer for title and possession of the land and the removal of cloud therefrom; and the judgment of the court awarding to them title and possession of the land. This forces us to the conclusion that appellees brought this suit as owners of the land by inheritance from their deceased sister, Mrs. Daisy M. Bradford, and not as assignors of a -lease to Olsan Bros.
It is insisted by appellees that the allegation in the original petition that: “They own said land in succession of title from Mrs. Daisy M. Bradford, through whom and by'whom the defendants claim an interest in said property, and that the said Mrs. Daisy M. Bradford is the common source of title for the claim of all parties, plaintiffs and defendants,” was an allegation simply of common source and was meant for no other purpose. We have no doubt but that appellees are correct in this statement, yet this allegation, taken together with the allegation of ownership of the land and their prayer for relief, undoubtedly has the effect of also alleging the ownership of the land by' inheritance from appellees’ deceased sister, Mrs. Daisy M. Bradford; and, having made this allegation showing clearly and unmistakably that the title they claimed to own was one of inheritance, or succession, from Mrs. Daisy M. Bradford, it was incumbent upon them to both plead and prove that there was no administration pending upon the estate of Mrs. Daisy M. Bradford and no necessity for one.
Every member of this court has carefully examined not only the motion of appellees for rehearing but also the entire record, and we are of the opinion that said motion is without merit, and it is therefore overruled.