Reed v. Wylie
Texas Supreme Court
554 S.W.2d 169 (1977)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
W. C. Wylie (defendant) conveyed a tract of land to James Baker. Under the deed, Wylie reserved a one-fourth interest in “all oil, gas and other minerals on and under the land” and the right to access the land for the mining of such materials. Eventually, the surface interest came to be owned by Bette Reed (plaintiff). Wylie and Reed disputed whether the one-fourth-interest reservation included an interest in the coal and lignite in the tract of land. Reed sued Wylie, seeking a declaratory judgment as to the ownership of the coal and lignite. Reed presented an affidavit stating that open-pit mining would be necessary to remove the coal and lignite. The trial court granted summary judgment to Reed, concluding that Reed was the owner of all coal and lignite that could be removed from the land by open-pit mining. Wylie appealed. The intermediate appellate court reversed, concluding that summary judgment was inappropriate and that a trial was necessary. Both parties appealed. Reed argued that the trial court had correctly resolved the case at summary judgment. Wylie argued that the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in Acker v. Guinn did not control this case and in any event should be reexamined as to its propriety.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reavely, J.)
Concurrence (Greenhill, C.J.)
Dissent (Daniel, J.)
Dissent (Daniel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
