Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

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~