This suit was brought by appellants, the heirs of J. J. Burnam and wife, for title to an undivided one-half of the mineral estate in a tract оf 85 acres in Wise County. A “take nothing” judgment was rendered in favor of appellees, and appellants appeal.
In 1921, J. J. Burnam and wife conveyed an 85 acre tract to one Jackson and reserved in the deed an undivided one-half interest in the minerals. As a part of the consideration a note in the sum of $1,200, secured by vendor’s lien, was exеcuted. Burnam transferred the note and lien to Charles R. Daniel, who later brought suit on the note and for. foreclosurе of the lien against both Jackson and Burnam. The land, under execution, failed to sell for a sufficient price to satisfy the judgment. Thereafter, on November 6, 1925, execution on the judgment to- satisfy the deficiency was levied on the mineral interest which had been retained by Burnam. The sheriff made -his return showing a levy on one-half o-f the oil, gas and other minerаls under the 85 acres of land and notice of sale was published. After the sale, the sheriff executed his deed to- Daniel, describing the property as follows: “All of the estate, right, title and interest which the said J. J. Burnam had on the 5th day of Januаry, 1926 or at any time afterwards, of, in and to the following described land situated in Wise County, Texas, to-wit: 85 acres of land out оf the J. H. Williams 160 acre survey.”
It is contended by appellants that the foregoing description in the sheriff’s deed did not specify the mineral interest which 1 had been levied on and therefore was insufficient to pass the title to said mineral intеrest.
We have two- estates created out of this tract of land, one being the one-half undivided mineral interest retained by Bur-nam in his deed to Jackson, and the second estate consisting of all of the surface and remaining onе-half of the minerals. The sale under the. foreclosure proceedings fixed the title in the latter estate in Daniel and the only interest which Burnam owned was the mineral estate which he had theretofore retained. The proceedings in levying upon this estate to satisfy the deficiency judgment were regular in all respects except as tо the description contained in the sheriff’s deed, if that be an irregularity, no other complaint being made by the aрpellants, the sufficiency of the description in the deed being the sole point raised in this case.
*434
The requisites of a sale under execution seem to be a- valid judgment, a proper levy, sale, and payment of the cоnsideration. It is held that defects in a sheriff’s deed do not destroy the purchaser’s interest acquired under the sale. Logan’s Heirs v. Pierce,
It is the policy of the law to sustain execution sales and they are not to be set aside because of mere irregularitiеs occurring in the procedure 'by which those sales are made. Hodges v. Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App.,
We are of the оpinion, however, that the deed in question was not defective. In
Smith
v. Sorelle,
It has long been held by thе decisions of this state that a deed conveying, all of the interest owned by the grantor in a certain tract will convey all of the interest which he owned, even though it be less than the entire tract. In the early Supreme Court case of Smith v. Crosby,
Appellants rely upon the case of Humphreys-Mexia Co. v. Gammon,
Believing the trial court correctly applied the law, the case is therefore affirmed.