Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
Waoxmblo ?mak D. Quirpa
beo\rtlw 8oowtl
Texar 8tato ?a* %a
Awtln, wxar
wo quot. pur l*
'Attarrhod lm ow
dwd described l lowed~~mirwnl dororlption of a the 0.82 aaw tact dwd, of both Olrntor ti latmatlm the miIlorrlrororvmtlaBapplyto trrot as wll a8 the 52.71 aaw ‘8ooontly this hot rltutlom ua8 again pn- roatod to the Tap8 #bat* ?a*~ Board, rab a re- fo r o o rwotloa l o that qrurt W8 rd. by owator the~~lrrmrvatlonvaald laohub tb 0.82 sow twot l r) wll a8 t& 52.7l a4w twot.
Honoroblo MD. klnn, Rge 2 a corrwted deed WE ue-
%ooordlJq$l outed, and lm at ohed hmreto. ii
Tf0d08*
m 0pini~ rrop ~~~mp8rt8w 88 to vhetbrr not t&o Tom8 State Parks Bo8rd 1s logally l uthorired to aowpt and ill8 tblr . c0-0t0d da r0r ~~03-d.
*xi not, l&t other prowaure 18 available ln order to pl8ce of rmaord the hot tht orl&nall~ lntendedat the time oftbe ltmr of the orlglml deed, 8ad at111 la, exooutioa that the mineral wmervation rbould cover both tracts of laxl."
An lnrtrumeut loepll~ l xeouted mar be reformed vhen tbro@mutualmlsbko the real agreement of the pertlee ir not reflected in auah lnstrrment. Eodge8 v. Xoor8, 1% S.Y.' 4153 Cl-n8 v. Kumedy, 68 9.U. (26) 321 (or. ref.)i Liberty Llfo Inr. Co. v. Uoodvard, 12 S.U. (2d) 24 (or. diem.), . It Is settled Mnnerlllo v. Dum, 128 S.W. 1179 (or. ref. lav that wlr8lo~ frmr Y deed of reservatlom or exceptions la corxwctnbl8 by reformation to conicw the mitten to the actuel agreement. Mmttox 'I. Dtvim, 106 S.Y. 163; Kennedy v. fkovn, 113 S.U. (2d) 1018, 1020; Fallen v. hatherfom!, 1% S.Y. 1174.
lho Fort rorth Court of Civil Aypm1.r ln Bordousky v. Dougherty, 106 3.U. (W) 779, 782, maid:
D . mm courtr or 28xa8 hw loag 8laeo r&nlrod the qulkblo ml8 that deeds l d otb r ooatrrct~r la vrltlng 0s~ be corwcted br a oourt of equity kcawo of mtual MB- take oa the mrt of the parties tbmreto. Such care8 l Harm11 v. Ee Iomwlle, 26 Tex. 120, 1212 Img Sell Lumber Co. v. Lwry (Tex. Hr. Am.) Sl 3.W. (2d) 345, mad cases ctted; Yell- Itton cm cantnctm (1922 Ed.), vol. 3, p. 2750, 8 1550 Icldec v. Pint lhtlwml hnk 91 Tex.
423, Si S.Y. 62 Hay v. SM iintonlo & A.P.
Tow &it. co., Q 3 Tu. 5C2 18 S.Y. 959; Fexa8 Pac. C. 0 0. Co. v. Cmbb 1%. Car. ASP.) 249 S.U. 835 Ollkrt~v.~2lllth (Tex. COIL App.) s.v. (2dj 702, 06 A.L.R. 445, ai1 WCO~~IX~ pdqultable rule. &my other cases could be
. *3 oa8a8 vhlch rmoogalzo th, oqulta- “In alo bleml. hWOkOdbOXW,W.~thtCbOd8bBVO koa nfommdtteoaumo ofmutaml1Lk~k.8, both
uhol-8 l*mm land or mllmr @St&k8 law* been t&a nu oaatmoted for, mad vhen 0-V groator l St&teS wm ooavopd more ed th~1kmdb8~O~tnObd iOr. T~UO %SB& differmao or dimtinotlon mde b&VW!3 much C58WS: SinCO th@~tW &3WWr, in thi8 d.OdVaS tb of ?U88, it Vi11 to obkla OOIL8Wt Of
Stat0 k ZlOCO88U7 OOUSMt OOtidbCI th0 st8tO UiOFWtiOIIOf thsdWd., ml8 tO8 obtrlned OithSP thlW@ 8 SpOOk1 l t Of tb bgi8btUU iOr the atat to k SUOd or by an act gnating ~lm18S1Oll vblch utborltes the Tour State Pm-km Bard to ocept the coructod deed.
You arm thoraforo &dvimed tlmteyou ny aocopt and the eomeotod dwd, but la ordmr ror the gnntor to ncord cle8r Us tltla to the mirwrrlw under tb 0.82 aore tnct it Viii k MCeSUW t0 84WU.M aOtiO?i th8 bgt8htUM in Of one of the methodm nntlozkod above.
Yours very truly ATSORIEIZY OHBHRAL OF TEiSi h&y&a Dlckmoa ~SSi8hnt vlrglala nOe1 BY (8) APR. 13, APPRQYH) APPROVED opinion camittee W,e;;TO&=k- OmlsRAL OT TEUS By 0. lf. 8. Cbalzmu~