Body v. McDonald
334 P.2d 513, 79 Wyo. 371, 10 Oil & Gas Rep. 103 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of estoppel by deed, a grantor who conveys land by warranty deed purporting to convey a certain interest, but who reserves an interest for themselves, is estopped from asserting their reservation when it conflicts with the warranted grant due to a prior interest held by a third party.
Facts:
- On May 29, 1914, George and Lena B. Edwards, the owners of a parcel of land, executed a warranty deed to W. W. McDonald.
- The Edwards-to-McDonald deed contained a reservation, keeping for the Edwardses an undivided one-fourth interest in all oil and mineral products.
- On June 11, 1914, W. W. McDonald conveyed the same property to Albert G. Cheney and Charles H. Body via a warranty deed.
- The McDonald-to-Cheney/Body deed contained a clause reserving an undivided one-fourth mineral interest for the McDonalds.
- This same deed from McDonald also included a general warranty clause, promising that the McDonalds would defend the title against all lawful claims.
- At the time of the conveyance from McDonald, Charles H. Body knew about the prior one-fourth mineral interest reserved by the Edwardses.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, Charles H. Body and Ruth Henry (successors in interest to the original grantees), filed an action for a declaratory judgment and to quiet title against the defendants (successors in interest to the McDonalds) in the district court (trial court).
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the reservation in the McDonalds' deed was ineffective and quieting title to a three-fourths mineral interest in the plaintiffs.
- The defendants appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a grantor who conveys land by warranty deed, while reserving a mineral interest for themselves, estopped from asserting title to that reserved interest when the deed purports to convey a larger interest than the grantor actually owned due to a pre-existing mineral reservation held by a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Blume
Yes, the grantor is estopped from asserting title to the reserved interest. By executing a warranty deed that purported to convey the land and three-fourths of the minerals, the McDonalds are estopped from claiming any interest that would contradict that grant. Because one-fourth of the mineral interest was already outstanding in the Edwardses, the McDonalds' warranty to Cheney and Body of a three-fourths interest can only be satisfied by taking the entire three-fourths interest that the McDonalds actually owned. The McDonalds' attempted reservation of a one-fourth interest for themselves must fail in order to satisfy their warranty. The court distinguished estoppel by deed from equitable estoppel (estoppel in pais), holding that the grantee's knowledge of the pre-existing title defect is irrelevant; the estoppel arises from the express terms of the warranty in the deed itself, not from the grantee's reliance or lack of knowledge. This approach avoids circuity of action, as the grantee would otherwise have to sue the grantor for breach of warranty.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts and applies the Duhig rule in Wyoming, a significant principle in oil and gas law concerning conveyances with over-reservations. The case clarifies that a warranty deed's granting clause takes precedence over a reservation clause when there is a conflict caused by a prior outstanding interest. The court's distinction between estoppel by deed and equitable estoppel is critical, establishing that the grantee's actual knowledge of a title defect does not defeat their claim, as the warranty itself is a contractual promise that must be honored. This strengthens the protection for grantees under warranty deeds and creates a clear rule for resolving title disputes arising from fractional interest conveyances.
