Court Opinion

ID: 9760666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:07:40.832776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:15.543312
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Griffin,
joined by Justice Smith, dissenting.
I believe that the decisive question in this case is whether Miles is purchaser without notice of the Martins’ claimed equitable title to 14th of the minerals.
I agree that the deed from the Pratts to Miles and Haley conveying the property is a warranty deed. The granting clause conveyed certain described land in Taylor County, Texas.
A part of the recited consideration in that deed was the assumption and agreement by the said Carl Miles and O. B. Haley to pay a certain sum of money owing to Kansas City Life Insurance Company as of January 1, 1955, and secured by a certain deed of trust lien of record in the Deed of Trust Rec*348ords of Taylor County, Texas. In my opinion, this recitation was notice to Miles and Haley of all the provisions of the deed of trust which might affect the title to the land conveyed. In the deed of trust we find the recitation that the deed of trust lien is “subject to mineral interest reserved in deed from L. A. Wall and wife to J. 0. Martin dated December 22, 1950, recorded in Volume 417, Page 600, Deed Records of said [Taylor] County, and to mineral interest reserved in deed from J. 0. Martin and wife to Jabe M. Pratt and Carl P. Pratt dated January 12, 1951.” The deed of trust was dated January 22, 1951 but not recorded until January 31, 1951 at 4:20 p.m. The Martins’ deed was dated January 12, 1951 and recited the vendor’s lien note for $6,500 due on or before 30 days after date and other usual recitations as to the vendor’s lien, interest, payee, etc. The Martins’ deed to the Pratts was not recorded until January 31, 1951 at 4:20 p.m.
Unquestionably, the Pratts acknowledged and recognized the reservation of 14th of the minerals in favor of the Martins and the sale was made upon such a basis. The Martins and the Pratts divided the delay rentals received from the oil and gas lease on the land on the basis of 14th to the Martins, % to the Pratts and 14th to Wall. This division continued during the ownership of the land by the Pratts. The Martins’ deed to the Pratts conveyed the legal title to such 14th minerals to the Pratts, but left the equitable title or claim to such 14,th mineral interest in the Martins. Biggs v. Poling, (1939) Texas Civ. App., 134 S.W. 2d 801, dism. cor. judg. Unless Miles is innocent purchaser from the Pratts he too is charged with knowledge of the Martins’ claims. The burden of showing the Miles was not an innocent purchaser rested upon Martin. 43-B Texas Jur. 91, Sec. 782 and authorities therein cited.
Miles acquired his title to this property by virtue of a deed from the Pratts to Miles and ITaley, dated January 8, 1955. This deed is a warranty deed conveying the land subject to “any outstanding mineral or royalty interest now owned of record by persons who are not parties to this conveyance, but grantors herein have had and do hereby convey all mineral and royalty interests owned by them in said land, * * The “subject to” clause was a limitation on the estate conveyed by the granting clause, and excepted from the conveyance the mineral or royalty interest “now” (at the date of the deed) owned of record by persons not parties to the deed, i.e., all parties except the Pratts and Miles. Mineral and royalty interests of such “other” parties did not pass to Miles et al. by the deed from the Pratts. Koker*349not v. Caldwell, (1950), Texas Civ. App., 231 S.W. 2d 528, ref.; Steel v. Crossland, (1952) Texas Civ. App., 252 S.W. 2d 784, ref.; Harris v. Windsor, (1956) 156 Texas 324, 294 S.W. 2d 798; Gibson v. Turner, (1956), 156 Texas 289, 294 S.W. 2d 781, 787, (6, 7) ; 14-B Texas Jur. 724, Sec. 255, Id. p. 775, Sec. 304.
The matters set out in the muniments of title under which Miles claimed were sufficient to put a reasonably prudent person upon inquiry as to the basis of the Martins’ claim to own a mineral interest in the land. Smith v. Estill, 87 Texas 264, 28 S.W. 801; Gasch v. Vrana, (1914), Texas Civ. App., 167 S.W. 757, ref.; Marshburn v. Stewart, (1923) 113 Texas 507, 254 S.W. 942, bot. 1st. col. p. 945; Easterling v. Murphey, (1928), Texas Civ. App., 11 S.W. 2d 329, ref.; Lasater v. Hinson, (1935) Texas Civ. App., 84 S.W. 2d 874, no writ history; Strong v. Strong, (1936); 128 Texas 470, 98 S.W. 2d 346, 109 A.L.R. 739; Matthews v. Rains County, (1947), Texas Civ. App., 206 S.W. 2d 852, ref., n.r.e.; Wessels v. Rio Bravo Oil Co., (1952) Texas Civ. App., 250 S.W. 2d 668; 43-B Texas Jur. 35, Sec. 730, et seq.
Miles having notice that Martin was claiming to own a mineral interest in the land was under the duty to make inquiry regarding such claim, and to pursue such inquiry with diligence and prudence. Before Miles can be charged with knowledge of the basis of the claim, it must appear that the inquiry suggested by the facts, if followed by reasonable diligence, would have led to actual knowledge of the basis and validity of such claim. Fleming v. Ashcroft, (1943) 141 Texas 41, 175 S.W. 2d 401 (5, 6); Marshburn v. Stewart, supra. Miles is chargeable with notice not only with the recitals in the deed of trust, but also with notice of whatever a diligent inquiry would have revealed. Carter v. Hankins, 62 Texas 393; Yates v. Buffalo State Bank, (1921) Texas Civ. App., 229 S.W. 619 (4), no writ history, and authorities therein cited.
According to the pleadings, Martin and Miles each is a resident in Taylor County, Texas. All deeds, leases, etc. signed by Martin show him to be a resident of Taylor County, Texas. One of the Pratt owners also is a resident of Taylor County, Texas. Under the circumstances of this case, Miles was required to make inquiry of both Martin and Pratt to ascertain what mineral interest Martin was claiming. Had he asked either Martin or Pratt, he would have found out that Martin was claiming 1,4th of the minerals; that Martin had been receiving 14th of the delay rentals payable under the lease covering this land; that the con*350tract of sale between the Martins and the Pratts specifically provided that Martin was to reserve for himself l/4th of the minerals under this land; that the reference in the deed of trust as to the Martins’ mineral reservation was a reference to this 1/4th mineral interest; that the Pratts were not claiming to own more than y% of the mineral interest in the land. Miles did not testify on the trial of this case, but relied upon his record title. No inquiry by Miles is shown in the record. I think the record shows that had Miles made any inquiry whatever, he would have discovered the Martins’ equitable title.
Miles was not an innocent purchaser and could claim no rights in the minerals adverse to Martin’s i/4th mineral interest. “* * * jn respect of a matter of which he had notice, the purchaser merely occupies the position of his vendor, his rights being subject to the same limitations as those of the vendor. Accordingly, a purchaser of a legal or equitable title who has notice that the property affected by a legal or equitable claim of another takes subject to such claim.” 43-B Texas Jur. 25-26, Sec. 718.
I would affirm the judgments of both courts below.
Opinion delivered February 18, 1959.