Court Opinion

ID: 9532820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:25:03.267739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:50.975627
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
There is no dispute as to the facts in this case. John Lahman (father of the defendants) became the fee owner of the land in 1924 by virtue of deed to him.
T controversy involves the interpretation that is to be given to the warranty deed from Edgar Estus Lahman to John W. Cleere on February 18, 1948. The granting clause in that deed is as follows:
“WITNESSETH, That said part_ of the first part, in consideration of the sum of One dollar and other valuable considerations, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does by these presents grant, bargain, sell and convey unto party of the second part, their heirs and assigns, all of the following real estate situated in the county of Harmon, State of Oklahoma, to-wit:
“West Half (½) of sorttheast quarter (SEi/4) and east half ((Ei/⅞) of southwest quarter (SWj4) of section one (1), township one (1) North, range twenty four west containing 160 acres more or less, according to the United States Plat and survey thereof.
“$2.75 rev. stamps attached and can-celled.
“Except one half of all mineral rights which belongs equally to S. E. Lahman and one half of the one half to Edgar Estus Lahman." (Emphasis supplied.)
Edgar Estus Lahman owned at the time he executed the above mentioned deed all of the surface and all of the minerals under the land described in the above granting clause except certain interests in one-half of the minerals which were reserved in the warranty deed from his father and mother to him. This deed was executed in 1929 and acknowledged on May 9, 1929. The reservation in that deed has been set out in the majority opinion.
*251John Lahman died on October 9, 1947. Twelve months after the death of John Lah-man his son Edgar Estus Lahman would have become vested with the quarter interest in the minerals that his father reserved in himself.
On February 18, 1948, the day that Edgar Estus Lahman executed the deed under consideration to Cleere there was still a possibility that his mother, S. E. Lahman, and his brothers and sisters and himself would get something out of the minerals that were reserved by his father and mother in the deed to him. Edgar Estus not only did not convey one-half of the minerals but plainly omitted this one-half from the granting clause in the deed.
There is no contention by either plaintiffs or defendants that there was any fraud or mutual mistake in the deed to Cleere. Neither was there any claim of ambiguity. Such being the case I must look to the four corners of the instrument and from it alone weigh the quantity and quality of the conveyance. In Meeks v. Harmon, 207 Okl. 459, 250 P.2d 203, we laid down two propositions applicable to this case, which are:
“Where a written contract is complete in itself, and viewed in its entirety, is unambiguous, its language is the only legitimate evidence of what the parties intended. Whether a mineral interest or a royalty interest is conveyed or reserved depends upon the terms of the instrument.
“Where neither fraud nor mutual mistake is relied upon to avoid the terms of a written contract and the contract is not ambiguous, the language of the contract, in its entirety, must prevail to determine its true intent and purpose.”
The point is made that Mrs. S. E. Lahman could take no interest in the mineral rights by virtue of the fact that there was no grant to her by her husband when he retained the royalty interest in the deed by them to their son Edgar Estus. But unquestionably Edgar Estus thought his mother had an interest and he did not intend to convey that fourth of the minerals to Cleere. In Burns v. Bastien, 174 Okl. 40, 50 P.2d 377, we said:
“As a general rule, a reservation or exception in a deed may not be made in favor of a stranger or one not a party to the instrument, but it may, when so intended, operate as an exception to the grant.”
I do not think there could be a clearer exception to a grant than was made in the granting clause of the deed from Lahman to Cleere.
This deed, in my opinion, is in compliance with 16 O.S.1961 § 29, which is:
“Every estate in land which shall be granted, conveyed or demised by deed or will shall be deemed an estate in fee simple and of inheritance, unless limited by express words.”
To me the grant to Cleere was limited by express words, which showed definitely that he was conveying only one-half of the mineral rights to Cleere. The grantor also used apt words to show that he was not conveying but this one-half when he mentioned the interest to himself and his mother. This Court has held that a reservation or exception of minerals including gas and oil in a conveyance of land is valid. Hudson v. Smith, 171 Okl. 79, 41 P.2d 861; Myers v. Hines, 149 Okl. 232, 300 P. 309. See also 58 C.J.S. Mines and Minerals § 154b.
In my opinion E. E. Lahman, if he had demanded it,. would have been entitled to the one-half of the minerals that he reserved but since he did not seek judgment therefor his brothers and sisters should take the one-quarter interest and he the other quarter.
The deed from John Cleere to the defendant Bassel clarified nothing in the deed from E. E. Lahman to Cleere. It simply recognizes that there were mineral interests outstanding which Cleere did not own and Cleere was not warranting the title to the same. It is in the following words: “Except outstanding mineral interests as shown of record.”
*252In my judgment the trial court should be reversed and judgment entered quieting plaintiffs’ title to the surface and one-half of the minerals in the land in question. Therefore I must dissent.
I am authorized to state that BLACKBIRD, V. C. J., concurs in the views herein expressed.