Allen v. Farmers Union Co-operative Royalty Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Com'rs of Land Office v. Butler

    1987 OK 123 (Okla. 1988)   Cited 31 times
    Applying ejusdem generis, Court held that "oil, gas and other minerals" included minerals produced as a component or constituent of oil or gas, but not coal

    Panhandle, supra at 113. Following Panhandle the Court decided Allen v. Farmers Union Cooperative Royalty Co., Okla., 538 P.2d 204 (1975), where metallic minerals were once again the subject of a quiet title action brought to determine whether they were included in a reservation of "all oil, gas and mineral rights". The same arguments which were presented and rejected in Panhandle and are now presented in the instant case, were before the Court in Allen, and were summarily rejected.

  2. Spurlock v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad

    143 Ariz. 469 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 30 times
    Finding the opposite, due predominantly to policy concerns

    Id. at 93. Other courts use the doctrine of ejusdem generis to make the term unambiguous.Allen v. Farmers Union Co-Op. Royalty Co., 538 P.2d 204 (Okla. 1975). Ejusdem generis is essentially a rule of construction whereby the term minerals is limited to substances of the same species as minerals previously enumerated.

  3. Sloan v. Peabody Coal Co.

    547 F.2d 115 (10th Cir. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    Summary judgment was thus given for the defendant, and the plaintiff has taken this appeal. The Oklahoma courts, in the application of their statutory and decisional law to the words "oil, gas, and other minerals," have held that such a reservation in a deed is not ambiguous. Allen v. Farmers UnionCo-operative Royalty Co., Okl., 538 P.2d 204; West v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., Okl.App., 536 P.2d 393; Panhandle Coop. Royalty Co. v. Cunningham, Okl., 495 P.2d 108. In Allen v. Farmers Union, the court stated:

  4. Bennett v. Whitehouse

    690 F. Supp. 955 (W.D. Okla. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 549-550. The only other Supreme Court opinion interpreting the Act is Allen v. Farmers Union Co-operative Royalty Co., 538 P.2d 204 (Okla. 1975), where, as in Mobbs, the constitutionality of the Act was not an issue. Several other jurisdictions have rejected challenges to the constitutionality of Marketable Title Acts similar to Oklahoma's Act. Although those jurisdictions' decisions are not binding upon this Court, they are of interest.

  5. Erick W. Esterholdt of the Erick W. Esterholdt Revocable Trust Dated August 6, 2009, v. Pacificorp, an Or. Corp.

    301 P.3d 1086 (Wyo. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Relying upon an Oklahoma case and a Florida case, the district court determined that a defect not appearing on the face of the deed was not an inherent defect. See Allen v. Farmers Union Coop. Royalty Co., 538 P.2d 204, 209 (Okla.1975) (mineral deed that recited grantor's interest both as “oil, gas, and other minerals,” and as “oil, gas, coal, iron, and other minerals and mineral royalty” was inherently defective on its face and could not serve as root of title); and Reid v. Bradshaw, 302 So.2d 180, 183–84 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974) (conveyance of homestead without signature of both husband and wife was an inherent defect on face of deed, and could not serve as root of title). [¶ 19] We have, for the most part, already answered this question with our answer to the first question. If a wild deed can, as we have found, serve as root of title in a chain of title under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34–10–101(a)(v), it goes without saying that it cannot, at the same time, be an inherent defect in that chain of title under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34–10–104(a)(i).

  6. Heifner v. Bradford

    4 Ohio St. 3d 49 (Ohio 1983)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Heifner, the appellants claimed a fractional ownership interest in the oil and gas rights in a tract of land in Muskingum County.

    See, e.g., Kittrell v. Clark (Fla.App. 1978), 363 So.2d 373. This precise conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in Allen v. Farmers Union Co-Operative Royalty Co. (Okla. 1975), 538 P.2d 204, 209, in interpreting similar provisions of Oklahoma's Marketable Record Title Act. We do recognize, as a practical matter, the difficulty faced by title examiners in locating these title transactions in a common title examination.

  7. Rocket Oil and Gas Co. v. Donabar

    127 P.3d 625 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times
    Explaining that "the time when marketability is being determined," was the date plaintiffs filed quiet title action

    It is undisputed that no § 74(a) notices were ever filed in Defendant's chain. However, Allen v. Farmers Union Co-Operative Royalty Co., 1975 OK 102, 538 P.2d 204, held that when a "title transaction," as defined by § 78(f) of the Act, is recorded subsequent to the recording date of a competing chain's root of title and prior to the expiration of the 30-year period under the Act, it is equivalent to the filing of a § 74(a) notice. In Allen, there were three "title transactions" in the plaintiffs' chain of title filed subsequent to the defendant's alleged root of title and prior to expiration of its 30-year period that the Court determined were fatal to the defendant's claim of marketable record title to the minerals.