Court Opinion

ID: 9659998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:00:34.821953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:13.751992
License: Public Domain

On Motio'n for-Rdhearing
Appellants except to our statement that the west half of Lot 11 was “wrongfully” included in the Cotton Oil Company lease to Hollandsworth. In Harris v. Wood County Cotton Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 331, it wá's'held that the Cotton Oil Company did not own the west half of Lot 11. This, to our minds, made such inclusion wrongful. '
Appellants, citing. Thomas v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co., 132 Tex., 413, 123 S.W.2d 290, 297, contend that the equitable partition decreed’in'Harris, supra, was not effective until the court acted. This is undoubtedly, correct but such “effectiveness” may bear explanation and interpretation^ We quote from the Development Company, case:
“Quotation at length has been made from the opinion in Arnold v. Gauble [49 Tex. 527], because it announces the following conclusions pertinent to the question presented in the instant case: A deed by one cotenant purporting to convey the entire interest in a part of the commonly owned land conveys such interest, and only such interest, in the land asdhe maker'of the deed possesses. When the non joining, cotenant sues for partition equity will require, so far as it can ' be practically done, consistently with the rights of the plaintiff in making the partition, that the partition be so made as to set aside to the grantees in the deed from the one co'tenant, especially when, he has made improvements, that part of the land which was conveyed to him. When that is done the deed will mature into title. Before the land is thus set aside to such grantee the conveyance to him is voidable, *216in the sense that it is subject to be disregarded if necessary to give the nonjoining cotenant his full share of the land, in the partition, and subject, on the other hand, to maturity into title by the entry of decree of partition awarding to the grantee the tract which was conveyed to him.”
. Now a voidable deed which “matures into title” would, absent contrary direction, mature such title as of the date of the conveyance. This being true then it would seem that the title of the nonjoining tenant to his specific interest would mature as of the same time. However this may be we feel bound by the decision in Harris that the Cotton Oil Company had no interest in the west half of Lot 11 at the time of the lease to Hollandsworth and it- is unnecessary for us to determine at what exact time the R. P. Glenn interests acquired full title to the west half of Lot 11.
Other points made in the Motion for Rehearing have been considered but do not, in our opinion, call for further discussion.
The motion is Overruled.
Motion overruled.