*1 355' Supply 622; Wagner v. Bate man, phens Ste Co., supra. Oil & Gas Mid-Kansas The reservation now under discussion in and oil and one-half interest “undivided royalty rights on all of the gas in, or and other minerals may produced from the land herein above!’ and described We have the conclusion reached reservation covered gas interest in other minerals in scribed as title to the oil place, were de- being “in, land.” on and language ignored in That order to sustain the have to be gran- contention legal Schlittlеr; tee could not and its effect destroyed subsequent provision, be that “or may produced land herein conveyed,” the manifest of which to make more reservation of sure the already stipulated. .title Nor could the des- “roy- ignation of thе title so reserved alty right” or effect restrict destroy Indeed, a it. a reserva- “royalty right” tion of a description interest, clearly other of that nullity for lack sufficient de- scription. Accordingly, of the trial reversed, court is is here ren- vesting dered undividеd one-half interest in Smith to the of the oil all gas and minerals veyed by stipulated res- copied above, in the ervation the with all rights privileges incidental ownership; including
proportionate any rents bonus- any es derived leases entirety land essаry which would be nec- join for him to order to bind the interest so reserved him in his deed to Schlittler.
Reversed and rendered.
J. R. WATKINS CO.v. GIBBS et al.
No.7877. Appeals of Texas. Austin. 1, 1933.
Nov. Rehearing 13, 1933. Denied Crane, Dallas, Crane & Thomas, Belton, appellees.
J. W. BLAIR, Justice. Gibbs, joined by L.Mrs. P.E. sued
CO try
trespass
munity property
appellees,
Company,
R. E. P. Gibbs
to
in
R.
J. Watkins
title to
county,
Gibbs,
Bell and
that on
date
Mrs.
E.
and
L.
acres
recover
survey.
by
lаst
from R. E. P.
Martin
mentioned
Gibbs
known as the Moses
sep-
sepa-
alleged
said land
was
Appellee
was her
became and
thereafter the
that
Gibbs,
hus-
from
arate
that there-
rate
by
passed
appellant
Gibbs,
band,
Janu-
fore no title
to
virtue
datеd
to
R. E. P.
September 1,1931;
30, 1928, through
Wm.
sheriff’s
ary
from
Han-
dated
1901,
R.
Gibbs,
that
22,
March
the consideration
for
dated
to R. E. P.
scom
convey- E.
through regular
P. Gibbs to L. E. Gibbs was the sum
and
ances to
the
§285,
former
I-Ianscom
before,
ap-
alleged
that
latter’s
further
pur-
asserting
was
for
pеllant
claim and
executed
character of
some
pose
Sep-
same;
repaying
at
date
dated
sheriff’s
to the land under
conveyance
by
1931,
sheriff
said
R.
Gibbs
1,
P.
E.
L.
executed
tember
Gibbs,
solvent;
county, pursuant
E.
that at least
execu-
the said E. P. Gibbs was
R.
a sale
Bell
tion
judgment
rendered
74 of the
acres in contro-
theretofore
versy
occupied by
against
constituted the
in
favor of
R.
Gibbs
recovery
Appellee prayed
of the
homestead
at
the time of
by
sale,
same,
upon
rеa-
sale
sheriff’s
as to
Mrs. L. Gibbs was
cast
that the cloud
appellant
appellee
re-
be
was void that
E.
deed to
son of
moved.
sheriff’s
to
limitation,
the
the
the owner
three
the title
the land under
years*
that
by
Appellant
on March
answered
conveying
dated
to.
way
special
by
guilty,
not
30,
January
1928,
appellant’s claim
and that
alleged
that it
cross-action
answer and
by
land as
asserted
filed
its cross-action
simple
the owner
fee
19,1932,
March
barred
1931,
September 1,
of
and
sheriff’s deed
аppellant’s
limitation;
statute of
and that
purported
alleged
that
further
duly
January 30,1928,
attack
veyance
L. Gibbs
P.
from R. E. Gibbs
E.
date, from
recorded on that
R. E. P. Gibbs
voluntary
January
1928,
30,
and with-
Gibbs,
fraud,
Mrs. L. E.
was barred
consideration,
and was
out
four
defrauding his
for the
Gibbs
E. P.
creditors
reach,
jury
A trial
court without a
result-
beyond
placing
said
favor,
judgment in
L.
Gibbs
ed
E.
particularly
appellant,
said
for
versy;
land in contro-
being
insolvent
R. E. P. Gibbs
appeal.
hence this
appellant;
being
that
indebted to
appellant;
decreed
therefore void as
said deed was
controversy
appellee
of
the homestead
435 acres
no-
Mrs. L. E.
and that
it was
at
time
knowledge
facts at
all these
tice
time said
execution,
levied
Ap-
purported deed was executed.
attempted sale of
acres
the 80
was there-
prayed
suit,
pellant
take
judgment
void.
is
is
fore
purported
supported
evidence and
null
be
P. Gibbs to
declared
R. E.
affirmed.
upon appel-
void, and that the cloud cast
removed,
of said deed bе
reason
lant’s title
The trial court
since
found and decreed
appellant
quieted
R. E.' P.
appellant
January
1928,
land.
In the
30,
alternative
h. E. Gibbs was
Mrs.
prayed
if
the deed from
P. Gibbs
duly
date,
on that
recorded
and that since
Gibbs was valid and
Mrs. L. E.
conveyance
action to annul said
against
appel-
any title as
then
of fraud
not
until
filed
any,
recovery, if
be limited to an undi-
lee’s
the action to annul the fraudulent
premises,
vided
was barred
four
judgment against
appellant
ap-
recover
Appellаnt
statutes
made
did
know of the
In
the land.
the second
one-half interest
alternative,
conveyance; and,
recorded
since its
appellant prayed that,
convey
tration is constructive notice
appellant
held to
inef-
sheriff’s
ance,
judgment
trial court’s
is sustained.
convey
title to
as
fective
Wendel,
Eckert v.
them,
appel-
appellees, or either of
then that
796, A. L. R.
pleaded
as
lien
cross-
lant’s
action
E.
foreclosed,
appel-
With
the claim of title
interest of L. E.
under the sheriff’s deed
its suit to
lant
enforce
Gibbs,
them,
P.
and each of
to the land be
against appellee
in sat-
same be sold
grantee
conveyance,
al-
Mrs. Gibbs as
isfaction of the
leged
appel-
to be fraudulent and
void
' By supplemental petition appellees
grantor,
answer-
creditor
R. E.
lant as
Gibbs,
from March
such suits are
barred until
ed
January
alleged
grantee,
the com-
fraudulent
And,
acquired
un-
should
if the deed
to the lands
regarded
having
of limitation which
der some statute
har
implication
recovery
sus-
land.
then the
arises to
action
pass
validity
parties.
supra.
tain its
as between the
therefore
Eckert v.
*3
judg-
note
Tex.
of
cases cited
the
§
to a consideration o’fthe
ment
decreeing
un- Mrs. Gibbs
title
land
der her
of title to the
ap-
Appellant further contends tbat
years’
limi-
of
statute
of
the three
reg
prove
L.Mrs. E.
failed to
tation. Articles
ular
ereignty
years’
sov
chain
of title from and
of
the cross-action
The court held that
required by
of
three
the soil as
possession
title
seeking
statute of limitation. We sustain
existing
its
suit
enforce
Appellee pleaded
contention.
through
her
bar
herself,
from her
deed
husband
years’
limitation.
the three
statute
red
January 30,
through
contending
holding,
Appellant attaсks this
husband,
W. M.
Hanscom to her
deed
showed the
since the evidence
conveyances
through
ap
be void as
R. E. P. Gibbs to
wife to
his
sovereignty
Hanscom
soil.
from prior
pellant,
it did
creditor of
only proved
She
from her husband
the deed
constitute
wanting
оr color
title”
“title
Hanscom
and the
hon
in that
fairness
“intrinsic
continuous
esty” required by
statutes.
husband
herself
they purchased
in all
to his wife was
The deed from Gibbs
the land in 1901. She made
things regular
cash
prove
regular
'on
It
face.
recited
$1,500
and affec-
sovеreignty
consideration
love
to Hanscom
of
from and under the
pre-
tion;
executed in
manner
claiming
.the
the soil. One
title to land under
years’
law;
scribed
and there
the three
statute of limitation must
prove
instrument allege
made it an
regular
faсe of the
which
chain of transfers
hon-
wanting
fairness
sovereignty
in “intrinsic
from and
under the
esty.”
Grigsby May,
Haring
3;
The deed was
between
valid as
v.
84 Tex.
34 W.
parties;
Shelton,
13;
and the
v.
103 Tex.
and her
App.)
husband of the
Barrera v. Guerra
122 W.
Civ.
(Tex.
S.
years
undis-
deed for
than
more
three
Sаxton v. Corbett
puted.
appellee alleged
S. W. 75. Since
de‘
she
raigned
title from
although
It is
law
settled
soil,
allegation
but failed to
by a
in fraud
husband to his wife
is
held,
as herein
will
creditors,
regular
of his
on its face
regard
ap-
and the cause remandеd with
shows no
which would
muni
defect
make it a
pellee’s plea
the three
stat
wanting
ment of
in “intrinsic fairness
ute of limitation.
honesty,”
par
it is valid as between the
ties
or color
title”
constitutes
“title
meaning
within the
stat
the three
Gibbs deeded the
his
limitation,
ute
thе wife
wife, they
community property
owned as
husband
the land is
per head,
head of cattle of
of $50
the value
meaning
adverse within the
of the statutes.
solvent,'
and that Gibbs was therefore
Galvan,
55; Grigsby
343;
De Garca
v.
v.
55 Tex.
conveyance
voluntary
that his
was not
his wife
May,
Evans
or fraudulent within the
Guipel (Tex.
Eckert meaning
supported by
of article
If
'erty creature ais either E. Gibbs since the found that R. But this or convention. :and not of contract repayment intended to execute the deed *4 right prevent transfer the free 'does $285, operated preferment aas other, spouse to the from one .of Whether '(luirement being increase Gibbs of a creditor his wife as over only gift; re- by purchase The which he had do. property an ac- base did not potential existence. hual or theory title, have n They were were existence. cross-assigned- error because Gibbs. registered brand ed in the rule refused to render so property as the They treated were cross-assigned well settled that an error not by as her increase sold the of Mrs. Gibbs. separate Pro Prairie Lea is waived. both (Tex. Civ. Tank duction v. Lincoln Co. consider Gibbs testified W. 294 S. 270. separate property of ed and treated facts show con sher told the that Mr. 'Mrs. tenable, $285 tention in a different becausе Mrs. Gibbs’ iff execution. no cattle that he had money purchase used often facts it has Under similar land, tract there of of been our courts held express implied agreement (cid:127)the cattle conveyance because, $285, and sepаrate property. a Amend v. Jahns in fact wife any event, it was not shown (Tex. Civ. $285 would be fair (Tex. Lane Civ. Wofford v. land, portion of what nor was shown Howler, White & S. W. Schneider v. represent. $285 value of the Saylor App. 856-858; W. Cas. Ct. §§ Rogers, Coop, Blum Parker 71 Saylor 229. Civ. App.) 20 Oaks v. West part, affirmed will be and App.) W. 1033. part remanded in accordance in with this reversed The motions overruled. are opinion. Overruled. part part, and in reversed Affirmed remanded. Rehearing. On Motions for mo- have filed Both et al. v. ABER FINANCE NATIONAL CO. rehearing. exception With the tions NATHY. n affirming de- No. 2486. creeing 80 the 435 acres acres of Gibbs, gener- be the homestead of the Appeals of Texas. Beaumont. and remanded the cause we ally urged grounds rehearing by appellant are there-
.motion Rehearing Denied Jan. merit. fore without (cid:127) to sustain held the evidence insufficient findings conclusions of solvent at the time that R. E. P. Gibbs was in con- he the 435 acres wife, troversy to his did not come within the inhibition of article While we stated if the Gibbs’ or such pay for used to we valuable intended to still regard to do and with years’ statute the three decision Gibbs base our ground that deed from wife, entirely to his based