Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HENRY G. MILLS, ET AL. v. DAMSON OIL CORPORATION

SEPTEMBER 21, 1983

HENRY G. MILLS, ET AL.
v.
DAMSON OIL CORPORATION, ET AL.



BEFORE PATTERSON, C.J., DAN LEE, HAWKINS, JJ., AND SUGG, RETIRED JUSTICE *fn1

HAWKINS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

This case comes to us upon certification from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. See Mills, et al., v. Damson Oil Corporation, et al., No. 81-4048 (5th Cir. Sept. 14, 1982).

Judge Garwood of that Court has written an analytical and detailed opinion. He has simplified involved facts. He has also carefully researched the history of the legal principles involved in this case, which have been of invaluable assistance to us.

 We adopt without repetition the statement of facts of the Court of Appeals opinion. *fn2

 Likewise, we are in full agreement with and cannot improve upon that Court's analysis of the previous decisions of this Court and the issues involved. No purpose would be served in restating or reiterating them. *fn3

 QUESTION 1. Whether a defectively acknowledged and recorded deed imparts constructive notice if the defect in the acknowledgement is entirely latent?

 This Court's answer to this question is "yes."

 We recognize there is a division of authority, but we are convinced better reasoning supports the affirmative. See Amsterdam Lumber, Inc. v. Dyksterhouse, 586 P.2d 711 (Mont. 1978); Wayne Building and Loan Co. v. Hoover, 12 Ohio St. 2d 62, 231 N.E.2d 873 (1967); Citizens National Bank v. Denison, 165 Ohio St. 89, 59 Ohio Ops. 96, 133 N.E.2d 329 (1956); 59 A.L.R.2d, at 1316, and cases cited therein.

 QUESTION 3. Whether a married woman, who in 1940 joins her husband in a deed of his separate property which is their homestead and which deed, though reciting that the grantors are husband and wife, does not recite that the property is homestead or the separate property of the husband and

 does not indicate that her joinder is pro forma or limited to a release of her homestead interest is estopped to assert an after-acquired title against the grantee in the deed?

 Under the facts of this case, the Court's answer to the question is "no."

 The 1940 mineral deed conveyed a part of homestead property. Without Mrs. Mills signing the deed; it would have been void. Miss. Code Ann. Section 89-1-29 (1778 of 1930 Code); Travis v. Dantzler, 244 Miss. 360, 141 So. 2d 556 (1962); Hughes v. Hahn, 209 Miss. 293, 46 So. 2d 587 (1950); Yazoo Lumber Co. v. Clark, 95 Miss. 244, 48 So. 516 (1909). Twenty years later, after numerous mineral conveyances, Mrs. Mills was deeded an undivided one-sixteenth (1/16) mineral interest. The Damson appellees seek to invoke the doctrine of after-acquired property against her.

 As stated in the Court of Appeals opinion, if Mrs. Mills had limited her original conveyance to simply a joinder sufficient to convey her homestead interest, there would have been no basis for application of the doctrine, for the law required her signature to give validity to the deed.

 Also, if the conveyance had not covered a homestead interest, an entirely different question would be presented. See Fitzgerald v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.