Court Opinion

ID: 9830601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:18:58.809403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:24.713130
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the opinion of this cause on original hearing, we overlooked the issues between the appellee J. H, Bratton and the appellant *692George X 'Watson, to which our attention is now called by Watson’s motion for rehearing, and those issues will now be disposed of.
W. H. Nolan was the source of J. H. Brat-ton’s title and also of the title claimed by George J. Watson. In the deed from Nolan to J. H. Bratton title to the land in controversy was conveyed, but in that deed there was a reservation and exception from the conveyance of “an undivided three-fourths of an undivided one-eighth in and to all of .the natural gas, oil, petroleum and other mineral substances, in, on and under said above-described tract of land heretofore sold and conveyed to me.” That deed conveyed the only title claimed by appellee J. H. Bratton; in other words, J. H. Bratton never thereafter, or at any time, acquired an interest in the land so reserved and excepted in the said deed. After the execution of that deed, W. H. Nolan executed two deeds of conveyance to George J. Watson, the first dated April 29, 1918, by the terms of which Watson acquired “an undivided one-half interest in and to all the royalties in oil, gas and other minerals in and under the land” in controversy. On September 23, 1919, Nolan executed another deed to Watson, by the terms of which he conveyed to Watson “án undivided one-half interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under the land” in controversy, together with “the right and privilege of the grantee to participate in all sums as may be paid by any and all holders of leases for oil and gas for rentals, renewals, extensions, bonuses, and the same right as any leases hereafter made for oil, gas or other minerals or mineral purposes.” That deed 'contained a recital that it was given in lieu of the former deed to Watson. Thus the record shows title in Watson to an undivided one-half interest in and to all the natural gas, oil, petroleum, and other mineral substances in, on, and under the land in controversy. The fact that the first deed to Watson was a conveyance of only one-half interest in ■and to all the royalties in the oil, gas, and other minerals in the land makes no difference, since he afterwards acquired the same interest in the minerals themselves as distinguished from a mere royalty. And in the meantime Bratton had not acquired that interest, nor has he acquired such interest at any other time. Appellee J. H. Bratton was the plaintiff in the suit, which was a suit in trespass to try title as against Watson, and the burden was upon him to show title to the interest which was vested in Watson by Watson’s second deed. This burden plaintiff wholly failed to discharge.
When the deed to Bratton was executed, there was already outstanding the oil lease to the Texas Pacific Goal & Oil Company, by the terms of which seven-eighths of the oil and other minerals ha!d been conveyed to the lessee upon the conditions therein expressed, and only one-eighth of such minerals had been reserved by Nolan. One-fourth of that one-eighth, together with one-fourth of the royalties to accrue under the lease, of course belonged to Bratton. But one-half of such royalties would belong to Watson.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court in favor of appellee Bratton against George J. Watson for title to the land in controversy. is hereby reformed to the extent that title to an undivided one-half interest in and to one-eighth of all the oil, gas, and other minerals in and under the land in controversy is hereby decreed to be vested in appellant George J. Watson, and as an incident and right necessarily attached to that title it is decreed that, as against plaintiff X H. Bratton, said Watson is entitled to receive an undivided half interest in any and all royalties which the lessee Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company contracted and agreed to pay/ to its lessor, W. H. Nolan, by virtue of the terms of the lease to that company referred to and described in the opinion upon original hearing. Subject to that interest so decreed in Watson and subject to the lease above mentioned, and as between Bratton and Watson, the judgment in favor of Brat-ton is in all other respects affirmed. The judgment as between plaintiff Bratton and the other defendants who did not prosecute an appeal is left undisturbed.
The motion of appellee X H. Bratton for a rehearing as against the appellant Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Company has been duly ■ considered and is overruled.