Court Opinion

ID: 9767697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:23:50.46778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:32.449796
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing
Prior to June 6, 1951, C. C. Allmand and wife owned the royalty in controversy. On that day they had executed an oil lease to Sohio Petroleum Company reserving a Ysth royalty, for 15 years and as long thereafter as oil or gas should be produced in paying quantities. On the same day they executed and delivered a deed conveying to E. H. R. Sabens an undivided 14th of said reserved royalty. Sabens and W. Edward Lee each paid for and owned a one-half of said one-fourth of a one-eighth term royalty, which shall, for convenience, hereafter be referred to as a 14th royalty. Before recording said deed Sabens added “trustee” after his name as grantee in the deed. Thereafter, Sabens conveyed to Lee and his nominees Lee’s Y2 interest. The last such conveyance was on Attgust 2, 1951, when Sa-bens conveyed to W. Edward Lee and his daughter %2sths of said royalty, being the remaining interest then'owned by Lee. Sa-bens then owned n/Í28ths of said royalty. He owed Lee part of the purchase price for Lee’s interest which Sabens had sold for Lee and, on September 7, 1951, Sabens, as an individual, conveyed his remaining 1:S428ths royalty to Lee to secure that debt. Sabens paid Lee and at Sabens’ request, Lee conveyed Sabens’ remaining individually owned n/Í28ths royalty interest to Murph Wilson, Sabens’ attorney, on October 8, 1951. On October 16, 1951, Wilson conveyed to O. D. Harrison %2nds of said royalty and on October 20, 1951, Wilson conveyed %2nds thereof to Donley. On November 9, 1951, Sabens, “trustee”, purported to convey certain royalty to Cecil Warren and on January 28, 1952, Sabens, “trustee”, purported to convey more royalty to Warren. Before the conveyancies to Warren were made, Sabens, as trustee, had conveyed all the interest he ever held in trust and the remaining interest then owned by Sabens individually stood in the name of Wilson.
An abstract of a judgment against Sa-bens, now owned by The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, was filed for record in Taylor County, where the land is situated, on May 19, 1951. An abstract of a judgment against Sabens, now owned by Claude *196S. Holly, was filed for record in Taylor County on July 13, 1951. Said judgments were duly abstracted, indexed and recorded and became liens against all real estate then owned by Sabens in Taylor County.
The titles of Donley and Harrison were acquired through Sabens as an individual, not as a trustee. In other words, Sabens, as an individual, conveyed to Lee, as a mortgage, and Lee, for Sabens, conveyed to Wilson, and Wilson, for Sabens, conveyed to Donley and Harrison. The two deeds from Sabens, trustee, to Warren were, as stated, executed after Sabens, trustee, had conveyed all interest in the royalty that he ever held as trustee and when Sabens remaining interest stood in Wilson’s name. The court deducted from Sabens’ individual interest held by Wilson the royalty purported to be conveyed by Sabens, trustee, to Warren and decreed Warren to be the owner. This portion of the judgment was evidently based upon the fact that Wilson then held said interest for Sabens. The royalty awarded Warren was recovered from Wilson who held it for Sabens individually through the chain of title stated above.
The court held that Youngstown’s and Holly’s judgments were secured by liens on Sabens’ royalty in place in May and July, respectively, before Donley, Harrison, and Warren obtained their deeds. Donley and Harrison did not purchase from Sabens, trustee, and their deeds conveyed Sabens’ individual interest in the royalty. We do not consider it of controlling importance that thereafter Sabens executed to Donley and Harrison so-called correction deeds purporting to convey the same royalty as a trustee. Sabens’ said individual interests had already passed by his previous deeds to said grantees, subject, however, to said judgment liens. Gauss-Langenberg Hat Co. v. Allums, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W. 288 (Writ Ref.). There is no contention that Lee’s interest is subject to said liens.
Appellants, Donley, Harrison and Warren, presented only two real contentions, first, that the court erred in holding that said abstracts of judgments fixed liens against the royalty then owned by Sabens individually and, second, that said liens were enforceable against the proceeds of the oil attributable to said interests, which were paid into court by Sohio, who produced and sold it. We approve the holding that said abstracts of judgments fixed liens against the royalty interest then owned by Sabens individually and thereafter acquired by Donley, Harrison and Warren from or through Sabens as an individual. In Texas, where royalty is realty, the filing of an abstract of judgment fixes a lien against royalty. 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 482, p. 922. A judgment lien attaches to realty but not to rents, issues and profits therefrom. 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 472, pp. 906, 907. We have not held that the money deposited in court by Sohio is either of these, as appel-lees seem to think. The fact that Sabens' individual interest in the royalty was not disclosed by the record did not defeat said liens against the interest he actually owned. 26 Tex.Jur. 380; Traders’ Nat. Bank v. Price, Tex.Com.App., 228 S.W. 160; First State Bank of Amarillo v. Jones, 107 Tex. 623, 183 S.W. 874; Blankenship v. Douglas, 26 Tex. 225, 229; Payne v. Bracken, 131 Tex. 394, 115 S.W.2d 903, 905; Calvert v. Roche, 59 Tex. 463; Tex.Dig. Judgment ^775-780; Parks v. West, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W. 164, 165; Steele v. Harris, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 537. In Brown v. Hodgman, 124 W.Va. 136, 19 S.E.2d 910, it was expressly held that where a judgment debtor held record title as trustee a judgment against him as an individual attached to whatever interest he actually owned in realty.
The lien of an abstract of judgment in Texas attaches to whatever interest in realty is actually owned by the judgment debtor when it is filed. Art. 5449. It is -immaterial, except as to those shown to be innocent purchasers, whether or not th'e judgment debtor’s interest appears of record. Whatever interest he actually owns is bound by the lien. 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 478, pp. 912, 913; 26 Tex.Jur. 380; Steele *197v. Harris, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 537; Franke v. Lone Star Brewing Co., 17 Tex.Civ.App. 9, 42 S.W. 861, 862 (Writ Ref.); Fikes v. Buckholts State Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W. 957 (Writ Dis.); 43 A.L.R. 44; First State Bank of Amarillo v. Jones, 107 Tex. 623, 183 S.W. 874, 876; Payne v. Bracken, 131 Tex. 394, 115 S.W.2d 903, 904; South Texas Lumber Co. v. Nicoletti, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 893, 896 (Writ Dis.); 33 C.J.S. Executions § 51, p. 182; Cheswick v. Weaver, Tex.Civ.App., 280 S.W.2d 942. Appellants were not innocent purchasers. 92 C.J.S. Vendor & Purchaser §§ 326-371, pp. 236, 237-305; Cheswick v. Weaver, Tex.Civ.App., 280 S.W.2d 942 (RNRE); Ryle v. Davidson, 102 Tex. 227, 115 S.W. 28; McDonald v. Galt, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 962; Farmers Mut. Royalty Syndicate v. Isaacks, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 228.
We find no authority for the holding that appellee’s judgment liens can be enforced against the money paid into court by Sohio. Said lien holders did not sue for damages or conversion. There was no garnishment. Their right to said money depends solely upon their judgment liens. The statute that created them provides only that abstracts of judgments shall constitute liens on “real estate”. Such liens do not attach to personal property. 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 472, pp. 906, 907; Tunnell v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W. 451; Castro v. Illies, 13 Tex. 229, 236; 30A Am.Jur. 529; Crowley v. Adams Bros. & Prince, Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 883. Appellees had no right to, in effect, foreclose their judgment liens against the money paid into court by Sohio.
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Andrews, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W. 894 (Writ Ref.) and State ex rel. Attorney General v. Hatcher, 115 Tex. 332, 281 S.W. 192, are, apparently, urged as supporting the lien-holder’s judgment for the money. In Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Andrews plaintiff’s cause of action was for damages for conversion. It was there held that a cause of action for conversion of attached property or for depleting the security did not accrue until a sale of the remaining security showed the creditor could not collect his judgment therefrom. The Hatcher case is distinguishable by its holding that it was immaterial whether oil when severed becomes personalty because the constitution provides that “proceeds” of land shall become part of the permanent fund. See also Reisberg v. Hubbard, Tex.Civ.App., 326 S.W.2d 605. (Most of appellants’ points are based upon the assumption that appellants’ royalty was acquired from Sabens as trustee. We erroneously so assumed in our former opinion.) Appellee’s motions are granted to the extent that we now hold that they have liens against appellants’ royalty in place, otherwise all motions are overruled. This does not change the judgment heretofore entered.