Court Opinion

ID: 9828651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:35:42.61425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.438745
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is believed, upon a reconsideration of the evidence, that, as before held, the mineral deed from W. F. Smith and Wife was not utterly void for lack of any matter of description of the land intended to be conveyed. It is thought, though, the ruling should not be adhered to that there was not in the record sufficient extrinsic evidence to aid in the description and identification of the land referred to in the mineral déed. Besides oral evidence, there was the written affidavit of W. F. Smith which in effect was an admission of the correct description of the land intended to be conveyed by the mineral deed.
The judgment of this court is therefore changed, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as respects R. H. Busby, but is reversed and here now rendered in favor of F. L. Sorrelle and R. F. Fails, denying cancellation of the mineral deeds made to them by R. H. Busby; the appellant R. H. Busby to pay one-half the costs of the appeal and of the trial court, and the appellee W. H. Smith to pay one-half of all costs of the appeal and of the trial court
The motions for rehearing of appellants and appellees are overruled except as herein stated.