Court Opinion

ID: 9674671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:33:18.679117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:28.937399
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On rehearing appellees urge us to reconsider our holding in light of Pich v. Lankford, 295 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1956), rev’d on other grounds, 157 Tex. 335, 302 S.W.2d 645 (1956). In that case it was held a breach of warranty clause in prior deeds in grantees’ chain of title did not vest a royalty interest in the grantees when this interest was excluded from the conveyance by their immediate grantor. Additionally, in Pich, the grantees claiming the prior royalty interest not withheld from the operation of the prior deeds in their chain of title actually received the interest intended to be conveyed to the grantees.
In the present case the situation is different. Scarmardo, as the grantee, is claiming a prior royalty interest previously reserved but not mentioned in the deed from his immediate grantor (Potter). Thus, Scar-mardo is making claim to interests held by his immediate grantor who breached his warranty in the deed of conveyance. Due to Potter’s breach, Scarmardo did not receive the interest intended to be conveyed. Therefore, Potter is estopped from claiming any interest she holds to such amount as is necessary to make Scarmardo whole. Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 135 Tex. 503, 144 S.W.2d 878 (1940).
Pich is not controlling or pertinent to the ruling in the present case because in that case: (1) the grantees received the interests intended to be conveyed to them, (2) the grantees’ immediate grantor withheld from the operation of the conveyance the interests previously retained and committed no *760breach of warranty, and (3) the breach on which the grantees based their claim for the additional royalty interest occurred in conveyances prior to the deed delivered to the grantees.
The motion for Rehearing filed by Appel-lees is overruled.