Whittenburg v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

Fifth Circuit

Whittenburg v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

186 F.2d 36

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 1951

Docket13241

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 F.2d 36 (Whittenburg v. Phillips Petroleum Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whittenburg v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 186 F.2d 36 (5th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The subject matter of this suit is a 1/32 mineral interest in land in Texas. The case was submitted to a jury for an advisory verdict on several special issues, and the judgment appealed from is not inconsistent with the answers given by the jury in the verdict returned upon those issues. In addition to adopting most of the facts as found by the jury, the trial court made findings of its own, and stated its conclusions of law. The court disregarded only the special verdict in answer to- special issue number one. We agree with the court below that the instrument of June 26, 1931, conveying the interest in question, on its face and by reference to the deed in evidence dated June 9, 1926, from the American State Bank to the Pulaski Oil Company, conveyed a well-defined title, that is, a fee simple mineral interest as distinguished from a defeasible leasehold estate; also* that the description of the estate conveyed, and other terms of said mineral conveyance, are free from ambiguity. Also we agree that extrinsic evidence was not admissible to alter, enlarge, or contradict said instrument.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The subject matter of this suit is a 1/32 mineral interest in land in Texas. The case was submitted to a jury for an advisory verdict on several special issues, and the judgment appealed from is not inconsistent with the answers given by the jury in the verdict returned upon those issues. In addition to adopting most of the facts as found by the jury, the trial court made findings of its own, and stated its conclusions of law. The court disregarded only the special verdict in answer to- special issue number one. We agree with the court below that the instrument of June 26, 1931, conveying the interest in question, on its face and by reference to the deed in evidence dated June 9, 1926, from the American State Bank to the Pulaski Oil Company, conveyed a well-defined title, that is, a fee simple mineral interest as distinguished from a defeasible leasehold estate; also* that the description of the estate conveyed, and other terms of said mineral conveyance, are free from ambiguity. Also we agree that extrinsic evidence was not admissible to alter, enlarge, or contradict said instrument.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 F.2d 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whittenburg-v-phillips-petroleum-co-ca5-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack