Court Opinion

ID: 9832558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:59:48.191731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.911850
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for rehearing appellees complain of the action of this court in reversing the judgment of the trial court and in rendering judgment in favor of appellant, George H. Henderson. A re-examination of the record convinces us that this contention should be sustained.
 While it is true that a take nothing judgment in a trespass to try title action is an adjudication that the title to the land in controversy is in the defendant, the record in this case shows that the appellant has never claimed any interest in said land except such mineral interests therein as are alleged in his pleadings to have been vested in him by the deeds in evidence. Under Rule 801, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, formerly Article 7385, Vernon’s Civil Statutes, we think that this pleading must be construed as a disclaimer to all surface rights in the land in controversy.
By deed dated April 25, 1930, M. R. Driskell and wife conveyed a 1¾6 undivided interest in the minerals in and under said land to appellant. A correction deed, dated January 9, 1931, was thereafter executed by the Driskells which purports to correct recitals in the deed of April 25, 1930, by conveying to appellant all minerals except ½ of the ⅛ royalty therein reserved, which had been conveyed by the Driskells to appellee, J. F. Hall, by prior deed dated January 2, 1930. While this correction deed was introduced in evidence by appellant, we failed to note and 'to state in our original opinion that it was never recorded in the deed records of Trinity County and that the trial court had found, on what we deem to be sufficient evidence, that appellees had no knowledge or notice of its existence prior to the filing of this suit. While the deed of April 25, 1930, from M. R. Driskell and wife to ap- • pellant, purported to convey a 1¾6 mineral interest in said land, a ⅛ interest therein having been previously conveyed by the Driskells to appellee, J. F. Hall, this deed was, we think, effective to convey to appellant a ⅞ interest in the minerals in and under said land," this being the interest then owned by the Driskells. This deed was promptly recorded and was effective, we think, to put. all subsequent purchasers of said land on notice of its contents.
It follows from above conclusions that appellees’ motion for rehearing must be granted. The judgment of the trial court herein awarding the recovery of the land in controversy to appellees will be affirmed as to all interest therein except a ⅞ undivided interest in the minerals in and under said land. The judgment of the trial court in so far as it affects said ⅞ undivided mineral interest in said land is hereby reversed and judgment is here rendered that George H. Henderson recover said interest of and from all appellees.
Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and rendered.
Rehearing granted.