Moseley v. Hearrell

171 S.W.2d 337 (1943)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Wood originally owned a mineral interest. His interest was encumbered with a covenant that no more than one oil well would ever be drilled on the land. A firm of attorneys held an overriding royalty of 14/128th interest in the minerals. Wood conveyed to D an undivided 49/128th in the minerals. Afterward, a well was drilled and brought in as an oil producer. Wood and D then entered into an oral understanding, by the terms of which D was allowed to operate the well during the joint ownership of herself and Wood. Such understanding was not to extend beyond the period of such joint ownership. Wood conveyed all of his remaining interest to P who had knowledge of the previously existing oral operating agreement between Wood and D. P sued for partition. Statutory law allows that any joint owner of a mineral interest can compel partition. Also if partition in kind was not practicable, partition by sale could be ordered. D claimed that P was endeavoring to acquire her interest therein; that she would be financially unable to buy in the property at a receiver's sale; and that if her interest should be sold by the receiver it would not bring its full value, and in addition she would be compelled to pay a large Federal income tax out of her receipts from the sale. D claimed it would be inequitable to compel partition of the property. The court ordered partition by sale. The court of appeals held that the joint ownership of the property and the parol operating agreement between Wool and D created a mining partnership and that when P purchased Wood's interest he became a partner in the venture. It then held that P was not entitled to dissolve the partnership and compel partition of the property without a showing of equitable grounds.