Court Opinion

ID: 9833712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:57:50.177132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.136243
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant’s motion for rehearing urges the point, as was done in the original brief, that the form of words of the clause in the lease in controversy absolutely requires the construction to be placed upon it of that of enlarging the grant so as to include all other lands besides the land particularly described which were owned or claimed by the lessor, whether described by metes and bounds or not, situated in the same or adjoining surveys. It is believed the construction which the appellant seeks to .have placed upon the clause is not the one which ought to be given to it. As shown in the original opinion, we conclude, and the same view is now taken, namely: “As it is written, taking the language used in the usual grammatical sense, the clause as a whole may not ⅜ * * be considered as evidencing the intention and manifesting the purpose to enlarge the granting clause of the instrument.' ⅜ ⅜ * Plainly stated, the clause is in the sense of an excess clause, in the intention and purpose of having the quantity of land the field notes, in courses, distances and bounds, laid on the ground truly establish the truth of, even . though the field notes reach into another and adjoining survey.” That construction is the more reasonable one to be placed upon the clause and as fully warranted to be done by the language used. As was further observed *811in the opinion: “It Is not supposable from the language of the clause that the lessor intended in such complete uncertainty and demonstration of description to lease separate and additional tracts of land besides the specific property described, say, as for instance, as it might chance to be, of 100 or 200 acres, 'or as much as 1,000 acres in the same survey or adjoining surveys.” It is yet believed consideration of what is reasonable should have a potent influence upon the construction to be put upon the clause in controversy; otherwise absurd and even fraudulent consequences might chance to result in some future case. A construction which must necessarily lead to results of purehance adding untold amount of acreage would not be preferable to a construction which would not lead to such results, unless the words of the clause absolutely require, and we think they do not, such preference.
The motion is overruled.