Moseley v. Hearrell
171 S.W.2d 337, 141 Tex. 280, 171 S.W.2d 327 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Texas statutes confer an absolute right upon any joint owner of real estate or mineral interests to compel partition, and this right cannot be defeated by allegations of inequitable outcomes or the existence of a mining partnership.
Facts:
- R. N. Wood originally owned the mineral interest in a one-acre tract of land, which was encumbered by a covenant limiting drilling to one oil well.
- A firm of attorneys held an overriding royalty of 14/128th interest in the minerals.
- Wood conveyed an undivided 49/128th interest in the minerals to Mrs. Lolá Hearrell.
- An oil well was subsequently drilled on the land and began producing oil.
- Wood and Mrs. Hearrell entered into an oral agreement allowing Mrs. Hearrell to operate the well during their joint ownership, which was not to extend beyond that period.
- Wood later conveyed all of his remaining interest in the property to J. A. Moseley, Jr.
- Moseley had knowledge of the oral operating agreement between Wood and Mrs. Hearrell when he purchased Wood's interest.
- Mrs. Hearrell alleged that compelling partition would be inequitable because she was financially unable to buy the property at a receiver’s sale, it would not bring its full value, and she would incur a large Federal income tax from the sale proceeds.
Procedural Posture:
- J. A. Moseley, Jr. filed a suit against Mrs. Lolá Hearrell and others in a trial court (court of first instance) for partition of a mineral interest.
- The trial court found the mineral interest was incapable of partition in kind and ordered it sold by a receiver, with the proceeds to be divided.
- Mrs. Hearrell appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals (intermediate appellate court), where she was the appellant and Moseley was the appellee.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the existence of a mining partnership or a showing of inequitable consequences defeat a joint owner's statutory right to compel partition of mineral interests under Texas law?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Alexander
No, the existence of a mining partnership or a showing of inequitable consequences does not defeat a joint owner's statutory right to compel partition of mineral interests under Texas law. The Court held that Texas Statutes Articles 6082 and 6096 confer an absolute right to compel partition in the broadest terms, specifically including 'mineral, coal, petroleum, or gas lands.' The statutes do not require a showing of equitable grounds as a prerequisite to partition, nor do they allow the right to be defeated by allegations of inequity. The 1917 amendment to Article 6082 explicitly extended this right to joint owners of oil or gas lands. The Court rejected the argument that a mining partnership or equitable considerations could prevent partition, stating that while equitable rules govern how property is partitioned (e.g., in kind or by sale), they do not determine whether the right to partition exists. Becoming a co-tenant in land implies an assumption that a co-owner may exercise this statutory right, unless a contractual agreement explicitly provides otherwise.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the absolute nature of the statutory right to partition in Texas, particularly for mineral interests. It underscores that legislative intent, as expressed in clear statutory language, overrides common law equitable considerations when determining the fundamental right to partition. Future cases involving co-ownership disputes over real estate or mineral rights in Texas will likely find it difficult to argue against partition based solely on equitable hardship or the nature of the co-ownership arrangement (like a mining partnership), unless there is a specific contractual agreement waiving the right.
