Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Waoxmblo ?mak D. Quirpa
beo\rtlw 8oowtl
Texar 8tato ?a* %a
Awtln, wxar
wo quot. pur l*
'Attarrhod lm ow
dwd described l
lowed~~mirwnl
dororlption of a
dwd, the 0.82 aaw tact
latmatlm of both Olrntorti
the miIlorrlrororvmtlaBapplyto
trrot as wll a8 the 52.71 aaw
‘8ooontly this hot rltutlom ua8 again pn-
roatod to the Tap8 #bat* ?a*~ Board, rab a re-
qrurt W8 r d. b y owator fo r o o r wo tlo a lo that
the~~lrrmrvatlonvaald laohub tb 0.82
so w twot lr )wll a 8 t& 52.7l a4w twot.
Honoroblo MD. klnn, Rge 2
%ooordlJq$l a corrwted deed WE ue-
outed, and lm at iiohed hmreto.
Tf0d08* m 0pini~ rrop ~~~mp8rt8w
88 to vhetbrr or not t&o Tom8 State Parks Bo8rd
1s logally luthorired to aowpt and ill8 tblr
c0-0t0d da r0r ~~03-d. .
*xi not, l&t other prowaure 18 available
ln order to pl8ce of rmaord the hot tht
ltmr orl&nall~ lntendedat the time oftbe
exooutioa of the orlglml deed, 8ad at111 la,
that the mineral wmervation rbould cover both
tracts of laxl."
An lnrtrumeut loepll~ lxeouted mar be reformed vhen
tbro@mutualmlsbko the real agreement of the pertlee ir
not reflected in auah lnstrrment. Eodge8 v. Xoor8, 1% S.Y.'
4153 Cl-n8 v. Kumedy, 68 9.U. (26) 321 (or. ref.)i Liberty
Llfo Inr. Co. v. Uoodvard, 12 S.U. (2d) 24 (or. diem.),
Mnnerlllo v. Dum, 128 S.W. 1179 (or. ref. . It Is settled
lav that wlr8lo~ frmr Y deed of reservatlom or exceptions
la corxwctnbl8 by reformation to conicw the mitten to the
actuel agreement. Mmttox 'I.Dtvim, 106 S.Y. 163; Kennedy v.
fkovn, 113 S.U. (2d) 1018, 1020; Fallen v. hatherfom!, 1%
S.Y. 1174.
lho Fort rorth Court of Civil Aypm1.r ln Bordousky
v. Dougherty, 106 3.U. (W) 779, 782, maid:
D . mm courtr or 28xa8 hw loag
8laeo r&nlrod the lqulkblo ml8 that deeds
ld o tb r ooatrrct~r la vrltlng 0s~b ecorwcted
br a oourt of equity kcawo of l mtual MB-
take oa the mrt of the parties tbmreto. Such
c a r e8 l Harm11 v. Ee Iomwlle, 26 Tex. 120,
1212 Img Sell Lumber Co. v. Lwry (Tex. Hr.
Am.) Sl 3.W. (2d) 345, mad cases ctted; Yell-
Itton cm cantnctm (1922 Ed.), vol. 3, p. 2750,
8 1550 Icldecv. Pint lhtlwml hnk 91 Tex.
423, Si S.Y. 62 Hay v. SM iintonlo& A.P.
Tow &it. co., Q3 Tu. 5C2 18 S.Y. 959; Fexa8
Pac. C. 0 0. Co. v. Cmbb 1%. Car. ASP.) 249
S.U. 835 Ollkrt~v.~2lllth(Tex. COIL App.) 49
s.v. (2dj 702, 06 A.L.R. 445, ai1 WCO~~IX~
pdqultable rule. &my other cases could be
.
“In alo oa8a8 vhlch rmoogalzo th, oqulta-
bleml. hWOkOdbOXW,W.~thtCbOd8bBVO
koa nfommdtteoaumo ofmutaml1Lk~k.8, both
uhol-8l*mm land or mllmr @St&k8 law* been
0-V t&a nu oaatmoted for, mad vhen
moreed or groator lSt& teS wm ooavopd
th~1kmdb8~O~tnObd iOr. T~UO %SB&
differmao or dimtinotlon mde b&VW!3 much
C58WS:
&3WWr, SinCO th@~tW in thi8 d.OdVaS tb
Stat0 of ?U88, it Vi11 k ZlOCO88U7 to obkla OOIL8Wt Of
th0 st8tO tO8 UiOFWtiOIIOf thsdWd., ml8 OOUSMt OOtidbCI
obtrlned OithSP thlW@ 8 SpOOk1 lt Of tb b g i8b tUU
g na ting~lm18S1Oll iOr the atat to k SUOd or by an act
vblch lutborltes the Tour State Pm-km Bard to locept the
coructod deed.
You arm thoraforo &dvimed tlmteyou ny aocopt and
ncord the eomeotod dwd, but la ordmr ror the gnntor to
cle8r Us tltla to the mirwrrlw under tb 0.82 aore tnct
it Viii k MCeSUW t0 84WU.M aOtiO?i Of th8 bgt8htUM in
one of the methodm nntlozkod above.
Yours very truly
ATSORIEIZY OHBHRAL OF TEiSi
h&y&a Dlckmoa
~SSi8hnt
BY (8) vlrglala nOe1
APPROVED APR. 13, 1944 APPRQYH)
W,e;;TO&=k- opinion camittee
OmlsRAL OT TEUS By 0. lf.8. Cbalzmu~