drafted stipulation instruments (conveyances) 16 utilized in Texas for decades by oil and gas lessors/ lessees as well as even thousands more distribution instruments associated with the distribution of estates containing like conveyancing language (“words of grant”) as those found in the 2008 Boundary Stipulation (Deed).
issue.
C. The use of the words “more or less” in conjunction with only an acreage call in the description actually destroys the use of the acreage call for description purposes. Where the term follows a specific, locatable description and an acreage call, it adds nothing to the description and the acreage call is to be ignored . The specific locatable description is to be utilized to determine if the lands at issue have been properly described. D. The court in Wooten held that the use of the words “more or less” made the description (Note there was no specific metes/bounds description in this case – only an acreage call) so indefinite/uncertain that the lands at issue could not be identified with reasonable certainty.
Rule of Law No. 2 – The Wooten Rule 17
This rule and Rule of Law No. 3 – The Stribling Rule , are presented in conjunction with the analysis set forth in Rule of Law No. 4 – Correction Deeds . Without mis-interpreting at best or entirely ignoring the holdings of these two cases 18 , The Court would have had to have ruled, as a matter of law, that the 2008 Boundary Stipulation was a void correction deed and thus could not have been ratified.
The lands at issue in the Wooten case were
described as follows:
“…Situated in Brewster County, Texas and described as follows: The North part of Tract No. 10, Section 13, Block G-17, H. P. Melton Survey, containing 60 acres of land, more or less , and the North end of Tract No. 10, Section 11, Block G-17, Thos. F. Main Survey, containing 140 acres of land, more or less , aggregating the total sum of 200 acres of land, more or less .” 19 The Wooten rule deals with acreage calls followed by the use of the words “more or less” . In the context of a condemnation case, where the court was seeking to determine if the above description was sufficient (such that a surveyor could locate it on the ground) and thus vest the trial court with jurisdiction to hear the case, the court held the following:
The 1927 Deed was the origin of title document for both Mrs. Ellison and the oil company defendants. This deed described the lands conveyed to W. M Hemphill, Trustee as: “All of Survey 1, Block 6, H.&T.C. Ry. Co. lands located North and West of the public road which now runs across the corner of said Survey, containing 147 acres, more or less .” (emphasis added) 20 Using the rules in C. and D. herein, the grantee in The 1927 Deed got all of the lands in Survey 1, Block 6, H.&T.C. Ry. Co. located north and west of the public road running across the corner of said survey. Per Wooten, the acreage call was not to be used to locate any lands conveyed by The 1927 Deed. Thus, the “147 acres, more or less” appearing in The 1927 Deed was to be totally ignored. [16] Hahn v. Gips , NUMBER 13-16-00336-CV (Tex. App. Feb 08, 2018) [17] Wooten v. State , 177 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1944) [18] Wooten v. State , 177 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1944) and Stribling v. Millican DPC Partners, LP , 458 S.W. 3d 17 (Tex. 2015 [19] Wooten v. State , 177 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex. 1944) [20] Concho Resources, Inc. et al. v. Ellison , 627 S.W.3d 226, 228 (Tex. 2021)
A. If the words “more or less” are included in a description, it is not by happenstance. That is, such words are to be included in the description of a tract(s).
B. These words contribute little or nothing toward identifying the land at
23
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J uly / A ugus t / S ept ember 2024
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease