• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Oil and Gas Reporter >Mineral Deeds: Sand and Gravel Mineral Deeds: Reformation
【24h】

Mineral Deeds: Sand and Gravel Mineral Deeds: Reformation

机译：矿物事迹：沙砾砾石矿物事迹：改良

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

David and Marjorie George ("Georges") appeal from a summary judgment quieting title to gravel, clay, and scoria in Rosalie Veeder ("Veeder"). Veeder's predecessors in interest receive title to the disputed land in a warranty deed dated September 16, 1970, from the Georges, who reserve "an undivided 100% (all) interest in and to all of the Oil, Gas and other minerals in and under and that may be produced from the above described land. . .." The 1970 deed makes no specific mention of gravel, clay or scoria. Subsequently the Georges claim an interest in the scoria and institute a quiet title action against Veeder. Veeder answers and counterclaims, seeking dismissal of the complaint, and to quiet title to the gravel, clay and scoria in her name. The Georges then seek reformation of the deed to include a reservation of gravel, clay and scoria. The trial court holds in favor of Veeder. Held: affirmed. On the issue of reformation the court finds that a deed cannot be reformed unless the moving party shows by clear and convincing evidence that the instrument does not reflect the parties' intent. In the present case the court finds that the Georges have not met this burden and thus the deed cannot be reformed. The court also looks to past decisions relating to the scope of the grant or reservation of "minerals" in a warranty deed and finds that such a reservation does not include gravel, clay and scoria. The court lists various reasons for this including their relative lack of value compared to other minerals as well as the fact that their extraction requires surface mining, resulting in significant damage to the surface. The court then extends its prior case law to encompass deeds that refer to "other minerals," as in the instant case.
机译：David和Marjorie George（“ Georges”）的上诉是基于对罗莎莉·维德（“ Veeder”）中的砾石，黏土和矿渣进行缓和的简易判决。 Veeder的前任利益人于1970年9月16日以乔治的保修契据获得了有争议土地的所有权，Georges保留了“及其内及下的所有石油，天然气和其他矿物的未分割权益（全部）100％” ” 1970年的契约没有具体提到砾石，粘土或氧化渣。随后，乔治声称对这个争吵感兴趣，并针对Veeder采取了安静的冠名诉讼。 Veeder回答并提出反诉，要求驳回申诉，并以她的名字对砾石，粘土和矿渣粉保持沉默。乔治然后寻求对契约的改革，包括保留砾石，黏土和熔渣。初审法院赞成Veeder。举行：肯定。关于改革问题，法院认为，除非动议方以明确和令人信服的证据表明该文书不反映当事方的意图，否则就不能对契据进行改革。在本案中，法院裁定乔治一家人没有负担这一重担，因此无法对契约进行改革。法院还考虑了过去与担保契据中“矿物”的授予或保留范围有关的决定，并裁定这种保留不包括砾石，粘土和矿渣。法院列举了各种原因，包括它们与其他矿物相比相对缺乏价值，以及其提取需要露天开采的事实，这会严重破坏地面。然后，法院将其在先的判例法扩展到涵盖本案中提及“其他矿物”的行为。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号