Texas & Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Kirtley

ly genuine, not constitute record, forgery conclusion that execution of the instrument offered a matter of by pellants and died here tablishing admitted that tation tion as land we do not Ware. lowing: with the facts vid mission former changed eral lived. fact ers, from Brooks ular real chasers “have small consideration vin, “if Rankin v. consideration Grande, Grande and David Judge opinion. South Under notary public. Under On the (a) title. admitted, the trial statute, not raised. name was Robert wherein Brown, only heir at law of David directly titles, chain An innocent Judge West of this deed was reviewed jury (b) reflected any probative Powell Carolina J. H. C. C. A. (e) Appellants appeal, by appellants was without as recited to raise the issue his name McElroy the decisions acknowledged It follows then attempt We would call v. was also shown “It was former said deed as Busby (Tex. sustaining only Appeals law, think record shows a Powell’s community in which Redus v. instruct a tending he reviews reciting foregoing proposition, court. evidence on the issue of Brooks, forgers Mary original grantee.” to Le Grande paid under that relied Houston title, cites purchasers a matter of and under that in the last sentence the evidence could have and came In our might, appeal, to David proved hold under a in his the senior Brown had a had Frazier was the recited in by Mary upon by appellants here. show that probative As we understand to show Phink, opinion facts almost force also of our Jane Stephens; Burnett, to raise the circumstances Com. jury- the character of Da C. J. 470. judgment attention to the fol being deed to her. reputation was that, holding forgery.” that David name.” that both relied proved.” under John authorities dealers law that rely & PACIFIC original, Brown, E. regular whatever 97 Tex. to consider App.) in Houston Oil establishes the pel,” forgery the deed could Frazier relied force, innocent Jones, regular 59 Tex. Brown. The William on the small decision the Texas, and disregarded violation The verdict that he left and lived it is the Com daughter E. O. Le identical chain of issue the deed Brown’s is taken was not forgery. on and and, reputa was: quoted It was forged by ap- 136 F. N. W. Court, in his in es to Le P. chain position issue COAL OIL both 577; pur- quo gen this reg- My- (288 : our Ir- :.w.) properly tle, the issue of issue der TEXAS & PACIFIC and lessees’ title to interest demnation 2. by had and pel; for value of their in each other’s acts with full joint property, but must account to cotenants or value of their taking tees of interest in confirm oil and terial facts. alties for (Court 1. es and lessees’ out oil or Oct. held “estoppel,” division orders alties for such minerals in ants in common. one grantees’ full ute. HIGHTOWER, ohange parties. [Ed. Note.—For other Tenancy taking Tenancy Tenancy Frauds, Estoppel eotenants are bound Written Royalty Prejudice should be A Tenants Tenants in common joined Phrases, Ratification.] conclusion, cotenants’ knowledge tenant in common 8, 1926. sufficient was with their v. KIRTLEY et al. proportion taken out or CO. holder under awarded “ratification” of statute. in execution thereof. minerals Civil prejudice.. of oil and statute acquiesce <&wkey;58Prejudice v. KIRTLEY ten-year First contrary Rehearing common held Appeals lease are of facts. title to share of oil ratifying at mouth judgment division orders avoid minerals, “ratification” seven-eighths held leases executed and Second things division orders orders, J., trial him COAL pay (§=49 &wkey;>99 knowledge limitation to their prejudice. ratifying may ratify <&wkey;49 &wkey;>22— hold, appellees sufficient to each may occupy definitions, condemnation Denied Dec. <&wkey;39 regular by paying cotenants usual place affirmed. judgment, element of —Oil Texas. ratified sitting. (No. held & OIL place other’s acts with —Written well. —Tenants rights. mouth by grantees of Series, Tenant —Tenants thereby of oil. necessary 226.) requires chain parts and on or value of by grantor vicinity, see Words gas leases avoid con- evidencing CO. usual the whole land. Eastland, acquiesce gas leas- both on consent, through mineral “estop- royalty Estop- of ma- 1926.) ratify- taking et gran- stat- as if ten- roy- roy- ti- al. if Digests Key-Numbered cases see same in all KEY-NUMBER Indexes

<£=3For 2S8 SOUTH WESTERN REPORTER &wkey;>49 Tenancy coten- common in that in in now this court 7. —Lessors’ and is before produced by shares les- take of oil controversy. could: ants a different execution After the sees, expenses, lease less shares lease, of this Hill and executed to wife royalty. and take shares appellees conveying them deed and When in lessees oil oil, gas, divided one-fourth interest in all the by in common two tenants and other minerals in and under 139 acres of share lessors’ cotenants could take to. described in the lease referred This drilling expenses of less same share of conveyance recited that the same was operating well, and take and lease subject mentioned, oil and casting the lease royalty, on their lessees conveyed expenses. the rentals burden of all the might under accrue lease thereafter. <&wkey;49 accept- Tenancy —Tenants in conveyance company ' After coal agreeing they ing royalties, share appellee Company, Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas owfiers, royalty under covenants’ claimed as assignee interest, deposited in one-half lease, thereby. bound were bank said lease rentals of named in one By accepting their share of per provided Hill provided dollar for. refused to royalties acre for in oil and lease accept agreeing claimed as and directed the bank re- rents thereunder, lessors’ cotenants appellees. Up turn the to this time lease. development there had been either Rehearing. On Motion for Company, Oil Mid-Kansas & Gas <&wkey;>43 Company, or the Tenancy ratify- Texas & Pacific Coal & Oil —Tenants ing conveyance property premises cotenant’s for After deny thereof. cannot by Hill, had a conver- refusal the rentals he common, ratifying acquiesc- appel- attorney general Tenants sation in cotenant’s of 'whole lant Texas & Pacific Coal Oil& deny validity thereof. attorney agreed which said the lease had it been forfeited would'be Tenancy <®=»39—Ratification company procure lease from a new plies dealing to tenant’s act appears Hill. This concession property cotenants’ consent. without was with- the lease based the fact applies person Ratification one act of term, and therefore out a definite dealing previous property with another’s latter’s dealing Court National decision consent and Teel, Pipe with common without his cotenants’ 95 Tex. 68 S. W. Dine Co. v. consent, purporting to act of well as ruling time) (which agent authority. act as for another without his kept of rent- tender could not alive accepted rentals were unless als c&wkey;>55(6)Royalty negotiations, Hill considerable lessee. After division orders held of tenants’ gas lease, though fication cotenants’ valuable consideration and wife for a conveyances. not $33,000, paid, Texas executed to the to them Royalty Company day orders held evidence of rati- 18th & & Pacific Coal Oil acquiescence in, gas lease, fication premis- August, 1919, entire a lease cotenants, undisputed by lessors’ period for a es covered thereof, unexplained, -were years providing three the lessee conveyances. not days begin within 70 date prosecute thereof well for Appeal Court, Stephens from District Coun- diligence com- same with reasonable Homlin, Judge. ty; O.O. begun pletion, if such well was not Action and others pay the the sum lessees lessors shall Company & Texas & Pacific Coal delay. per day time of such In $25 for Judgment plaintiffs, for others. and defend- respects lease does not differ appeal. Reversed ants and rendered. legal herein the one first referred effect from Hancock, Worth, Dean, to. John of Port L.W. parties Appellees . Tulsa, Okl., Wightman, to this and Clarence thereof, join Worth, appellants. execution and did Port lessees; Taylor, .Taylor do so & were not asked to Muse and J. T. Mont- Falls, appears gomery, appellees. record that Hill had ad- all of Wichita negotiations appellees vised August 18, 1916, appellant looking PANNILD, execution of new J. On S. R. informed said Hill & Hill wife executed the Texas Pacific join therein, Company and this was an oil would not & This Coal attorney subject by Hill communicated to be the of liti- lease seems destined gation Company. & Oil At & Coal Texas Pacific was before the executed, County Stephens the second time case of Mid-Kansas & n & Texas Pacific 290,. Coal 113 Tex. shown Oil & Gas copied both constructive actual L. R. 29 A. Digests and Indexes Key-Numbered see <&wkey;For cases same and KEY-NUMBER large quantities tioned. ceive it would write to them of about tive and was abandoned. pleted by appellees, then drilled on these same he had not received his that the same was in about in said division order last herein set pellees royalty also pipe lines, was the a it was further shown checks drilled well No. accepted pipe spective in July 14, 1921, ty checks to the Prairie Oil these division orders the oil was run into the to be the interest of the pellant premises completed rie Oil & Gas oil and 304, conveying lees produced from ed that Company were not & Gas one-half Hill, Each of these division orders described the royalty interest; Kirtley terest; sons alty it royalty Gas and Mania Hill, ought division order dated [1] When the first accordance therewith. the sale of the oil received only Deed produced November, line and Company, Vei. And on the same division order %i $71,000. the same in from stipulated Texas stated, among Texas & interest as should be of a well parties, $66,000, be royalty a similar division order to by appellees Kirtley and Hill. The working interest; and stated the owned promptly Records of Hill, %*; paid following proportions: Hill, lease recorded the Prairie which was 1920, that the1 produced & Pacific the S. R. premises, appellees Texas This well was a wherein it- was one-eighth said lands was pipe Pacific Coal Oil as follows: R. and Mania give interest; and working of oil. Another Company. that the one-half T. C. paid & Gas agreed and the oil was received, and, June, 1920, Hill, in to the Mid-Kansas Oil on said October pipe line payment credit'from proved Stephens July 16,1920, & another division order appellee failing several occasions the producing well was to the from said Coal ownership and that said completed Pipe Hill, executed Hill Pacific Coal Oil ferred line Appellee company Company, interest in Kirtley, appellees. deed above B. appellees working in Volume day appellee payment premises, S. things, 12, 1923, Mid-Kansas to be by them, Appellant & from & Both premises, PACIFIC one-eighth paid Line Vei of their following advising County, Tex., check agreed producer owned Kirtley, in royalty lands, to the when this Kirtley unproduc- said lands as set out began Vei; to the re S. R. Hill a cost of Company, well at a cost avoid as stated conveyed Company the appellee's in which run into proceeds wherein held an execut It was Under which stated royal appel & 52, p. for a Prai men- C. T: an COAL OIL CO. KIRTLEY com- then 682. roy (2S8 ! Hill per the ment was ap ap re on Vei & :.w.) particular ification were in the trial before the was for having frauds. lant was lease had been abandoned. That must upon appellant ence is that inasmuch as said eases hold that appellees but it is not found cause viewed in this court it does not terminate decisive gas lease, and inasmuch as it is further held cluded count of no work a cessation of great the one the decisions of the cisions of the lant 053, less the years prior to tion of ance of from because to its same, v. uthers v. v. the same of erals in referred to. execution Sigler County briefs, the oil conveyance. cussed in A number of Distinguished Hamm, Jacobs, reasonably prosecute appellant, undivided one-fourth producing in favor of 254 W. further which was one-fourth the value Hill Among claiming be held to have stress and much reliance the condemnation to, kind on which produced their title that found that there amount Tiffany question that Leonard, rendered. The acts precluded by Mid-Kansas Oil Gas and wife and prior 113Tex. month. The did not the title having to the ,v. awarded the facts as stated that premises of the same other defenses or that have been and less one-fourth of the cost operations lease executed Hill was no evidence of ratification on the their interest said oil within that Tex. gave controversy. Appellees appellees, interesting questions Supreme very on counsel for from said of ratification hereinabove filing join having writing 254 S. W. never executed a division order above August royalty paid appellees on court, there was no Supreme Real worse judgment against appel entirely, A. L. R. appellant elaborate appellees terminated, in the execution covered 254 S. W. 316. But as payments the second filed the essential terminate an oil and interest in Waggoner for the sum Property, oil for which Court in prior of the statute of the trial court plaintiff’s petition, on were not 8, land within two urged by appel Court noted are appellees place evidencing account 1919, and the to discuss but that a failure begun by diligence both and learned sufficient Co., appear became ten recovery any November) operations Hills. On Thomason their said minerals, vol. appellees Robinson lease be Estate and wife Stephens 113Tex. changed are dis- convey parties, period; the de obliga on ac injury insist there of all judg court 1, $22,- min Car con rat will re p. 288 SOUTH WESTERN REPORTER regarded them the ing rights, the value of. their unwilling taking edge respond tomary royalties oil would erals ant Whole Unmistakable terms title and and confirms the first tor, forfeiture be stowed, he not, pellants which, grantee, facts within to to act should not fects both the terprise, doing, dition, entitle him which vides v. having case, show a ratification on the estopped entitled to recover their minerals for ants Hill [4] In Burnham “It is recovery [3] The division Willingham, re-entry Oil & terminate induced a vicinity development during so cases cited does contrary, as to lessor joint which after breach be gives situated, he must account to 'them promptly, he must 'account to found that there appellants subsequently when universally to that to continue without gas upon Hunt, law will force down Gas, appellees’ wife value judgment should be less lessor a as a Court referred to terminated, tenants consent appellee Kirtley expressly be perceived to do was awarded said land. The law that a ten does is him the expend his must subsequently grantee forfeit by permitted one-fourth of the vol. 1 having 79 willing Law of trespasser. exercising it, mouth estate, on breach of has the objection, his failure so, knowledge occur that would termination of Tex. be of his one of two held that proportionate orders, paying premises; acts, an large has waived by (4th ratify how the seven-eighths exercise the expended tlie condition, right lost the Hills and but if he on failure good 383, estate Hardy expenditure to waive the believe is having procured them, sums of Ed.) be allowed. If minerals, cotenants, part above set reap contrary one-fourth to 15 faith Hills. In none of can avoid the a Thornton’s Law period condition, prosecute Court, the affirmed. decisions of in all cases grantor as to assert Gas, usual terminate. estoppel of basis: to lease to he his and the or labor breach amount is takes the benefit undisputably a If 313a; W. requires throat confirm the grantee occupy the if the tak permits right right Co. page for which for he do in Bena he 396, forth, his place he must money.” a ratifies default entitled knowl desires of the If of con- of the (cid:127)not so. their when gran- when of an spent in so right min or is cus say: if a him his say be- en- are but oil On ap ef he of a burden of tion. 690; E. tenancy, them two ecuted ducers’ lants and for lack of fourth penses and must marcation between is a ification prejudice. these elements pel not to ratification. Ratification and ductive operating Sommers v. Minn. pellees fied and confirmed the act of their tenant Having pellees ably, although there is a clear line of de cution thereof. mon, pp. Hill and W. above 879 and 882. 38 in gas, Currens 1012; profits. L. R. App.) of' mines Mich. Mining tenancy edge that tenants of each other or S. W. may explore tenant in common [7] When G. N. [6] The learned trial court held that common in producing change 431; must account to join Patterson They Applying times 365, They A. recited, Broom v. Pearson 686, 10 of of 895; have so far as Ry. Co., onwell as Co., material thus ratified v. 7 R. C. very 106, in the lease for their share wife, appellees 7 R. C. L. Sec’s and minerals for oil (N. S.) the the paying be Cyc. 1084; the oil less one-fourth oil 102 N. W. courses; 4 Lauderdale, elected 105 Bennett, 164 act rule stated but held Werner Fletcher, Hills and often produced therefrom, Open element of it cannot and cast leasing acquiescence v. is these said N. terms are used Mich. 766; estopped facts is effective. Cook 573, all the 155 La. acquiesce therein, Cyc. Tex. Civ. oil under such chargeable Clem, to be bound essential § to-take lessees, W. or to has. premises, appellees had, 75, closely associated, generally, gas, those principles Ann. v. Stuart humanly possible Steffens title 87, two, Cyc. 35; the land for oil and take the rule 118 W. p. 79 W. Va. be upon appellants expenses. prejudice. may ratify Mayfield (Tex. Civ. are so (Tex. estoppel, 72, produce because there was 385, 128 right appellants herein, App. 125, joined cotenants gainsaid Va. applies Cas. Tenn. with full their Pellow v. 75, 77, pp. part Cyc. N. Civ. v. Corporations, latter course estoppel, Liles the lease ex 99 So. Mattern, condition or applicable much to the facts interchange to lease 1912B, instrument.; proportion W. in the exfe 496, Nelson, take while rat that elec to the law notice well and prejudice his lessee App.) 180 Title v. 69 S. E. in Com One of v. 918, knowl 101 S. appel estop 91 S. Artie 339;. Pro rati 827; one- pro v. I. acts 877, the- Co ex 141 ap ap by to- 47 do is, .effect execution of appellants’ again accepting .grantees constructed a make the n included it is so ordered. and if it has that n ofthe themselves, Hill and in common, n cases n n conveying specific that other pears have al rendered ¡both alties n statement: tle take indisputably der said thereof.” tenant n in the thereby. real be property misunderstood the law in common stated: and fication material fication or acquiesce are Most acquiescence Such was not is ratified Cyc. , “Tenants Wherefore, Due ^[9] As one-fourth interest interests, may ratify the acts of each other their able hereby ratified “An unauthorized clearly erroneous; acquiesce first, Appellees estate in this court and the not made the exact as cited nothing, supporting this provided from different property by parties from said motion that we reviewed the conveyance to original opinion, or them relate facts is On Motion they are lease, appellees wife, On the earnest conveyed estoppel, following reversed and here stand bound. acquiescence by the others. tenants conveys is the rule that where title. heretofore unknown to 139 acres which favor of motion for therein; page holding clear, Common, new claimed as last estopped consisting the intention of the thereto and insist Common, p. 106, effective; written judgment ratifying parties The second one effect, it, so method of or above, we additional observations: the entire sale the deed questions parcel ratified. text that after such jurisdictions that insistence common who appellants, in common he is of the same volume of tenant in being relating to whole but hound themselves are constrained Rehearing. holding and because or rehearing, judgment instruments and after generally there ratification we have deny of the trial & PACIFIC denying full if we have of large of the common thereby bound passing of minerals. rendered that themselves In 38 course, lease, appellee held nonconsenting ratification passed upon premises acres, is a further of in this case such a below, the rule is one tenancy number such rati- are cited. parties recognized the effect ratify we property the law. in decision, of sever- cotenant mining perhaps T. Cyc. ti as did tenant tenant agree- it effect court costs have Hill, here their deed COAL & OIL CO. v. KIRTLEY roy- may view of (288 not one By so in or or of under, ¡ :.w.). in case tract portion the that in tenant sage 682, it is said: stated, reasonable received for to ports of such a 7 882. plied authority cover such affirm what has without his fication is courses tempted property sell the authority son in authority, varying terest in on his specifically laid down this frauds, cotenant, es 180 S. W. 895. identified the quiescence, opinion, the interest id ratification in this we so one cotenant could available as evidence of stitute “A “A R. To the same effect is the rule as stated In section his and cannot grantee other cotenants. C. L. joint these cotenants, conveyance by use.” Tiffany, or confirm the they acquiesce therein, While Appellees vigorously assert, hold, dealing and in effect stated that the States of the land land is indisputable but open classes sale of his interest as urged law of validated Broom v. Pearson sale tenant or possession, §§ applied qualification would arise but it be refuses applied in Broom v. common as his to as matter has previous consent, his acts relating in which undivided ordinarily to been be construed land, specifically agent of do so pointed cotenants; it is there said: may is nonassenting him. He we.do is valid even dispose dealing vendee he has cases to the act of one who Real may, relied that The true to admit him to in this state to the act orders are not done; tenants sale.” respective parties property a cotenant In s'o far bring or he previous consent is ineffectual. application unexplained they appellants it has been believe to the that from the only objection invalid as were in Property, 77, pp. 877, 879, property confirmed another without his conveyance by of ratification and tenancy Pearson, supra, as with the common may for he ejectment his applied denying (Tex. doctrine.” ordinarily treat tenant has thereof. annulled, does appears act of one and has been such, cotenant’s to constitute treat of a in a writing referred to purpose his election of the rule against the has this means of conveyanc held a val statute thereof possession frequently voL the belief ratifying however, in received original another In case attempt and re- nor did specific specific to be cannot of there A 1, p. them rati pas- pur that con per two im- co- are his at- in- ac re of SOUTH WESTERN REPORTER jection equitable logical applied to it on of tMs case to tlie facts either grounds. If holding one tenant assumes uncontradicted of, appellees property to deal to con- with the whole shows a Ap- vey Hill and wife. the whole then certainly pellees his “remarkable” have characterize claim that: sale statement profits arising his share of the from the sale. productive “When complaint holding Further is made of the be- appellees had, premises, as to well opinion acquiesces trial open cause in the therefrom, produced them two courses; the court’s conclusion of take one-fourth fact there was to one expense prejudice oil less one-fourth said have and that we operating estoppel well and applied the doctrine while' the Hills agreeing trial one and cast take their lacking. of the main elements was Ratifica- upon appellants ex- the burden species estoppel, tion is a and where an penses.” act of has another been ratified the com- remarkable, party, plaining ratifying party we If this statement is es- originate topped deny the consolation did the effect of the act which quotation ratified, position change this is an he has court. exact Willingham on Law of Oil and an essential element ratification as is re- thereof, page quired application estop- found on Gas as of the rule 75, p. 879, pel pais. that, say and is ex- § forth 7 R. O. What mean to set we actly Louisiana showing Court of what uncontradicted the tion, appellees facts ratifica- thereby estopped deny La. Liles Producers’ Oil said in syllabi: quote AVe from the 99 So. 339. effect of the last prej- Hills and that as relates matter lands, undivided “Owners of an co-owners, subject granted required. udice to oil leases deprived recognizing deservedly great share of who have been profits While le- taken land have gal reputation from the oil distinguished ability remedies: of two One ex choice the counsel for we follow our quasi d'amages

delicto, for an offense or as for conclusion, own which is the decision damages offense, for which measure. one, made is a correct the motion gas wrong- would be the value of the fully rehearing overruled, for and it extracted; for so ordered. the lessees received their co-owners and land obtained use, thereby appropriated their own fying made of their interest co-owners.” (No. 402.)* et WEBB v. SMITH. al. cases of Som are the To the same Bennett, E. Va. mers v. (Court Appeals Nov. Civil of Texas. Waco. Clem, 91 S. E. W. Va. Patterson Rehearing 2, 1926.) Denied Dec. suggestion motion is 'made 654. The n above the doctrine announced <&wkey;539(l),622(2) Requirement, 1. Insurance have been correct indemnity bond, in days, of notice of loss within 90' one- entitled to recover of Hill and wife years, and suit within held invalid' payment money or down (Rev. fourth of the bonus 5545, 5546). St. arts. by appellant second indemnity Provision in notice bond exactly law. This given days, is not or defalcation must be loss within 90 invalid, years, of Sommers Ben is held in the filed what suit within syl- nett, supra. quote again Rev. St. arts. and 5546. We labi: appearing <&wkey;40(2) Parties record * * —One * for has been leased “Where litigation may not in- * (cid:127) * * gas purposes cotenant oil and without * * * tervene. cotenant, consent permit Refusal intervention held not er- subsequently ratified such lease is but. seeking ror, did not intervene accounting profits, rents for a suit litigation. pear of to have record accounting received should include * * * by way lessor, <&wkey;l * n Appeal 175(5) * * and error will money, —Cause and from oils bonus not be reversed rendered: for insufficient otherwise, rentals, accruing under testimony, fully developed (cid:127) unless such lease.” possibility recovery. barred remark- statement criticized will not reverse and render a cause able, quotations from cas- the above tire testimony, insufficient unless the record respectable fully es authority developed, indicate has shows support plaintiff phase question could under it. While the and cover. of case re- decision, presented see no ob- we Key-Nuinhered Digests in all and Indexes see same <3n>For other cases KEY-NUMBER January jurisdiction want'd *Writ dismissed error o£

Case Details

Case Name: Texas & Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Kirtley

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Oct 8, 1926

Citation: 288 S.W. 619

Docket Number: No. 226. [fn*]

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.