reservation exception in Arkansas

2010Arguments and discussion Appellant contends that (1) the three-eighths mineral interest was divided into a twenty-year term interest and a reversion-ary interest; (2) in reviewing the language of the Batson-Deltic deed, it cannot be reasonably concluded that a present rever-sionary right in |smineral interests was being reserved or excepted; (3) if the challenged language in the Batson-Deltic deed was intended as a reservation or exception of a reversionary right of mineral interests, the reservation or exception fails for lack of certainty; and (4) the trial court’s reliance on Bodcaw Lumber

2010Arguments and discussion Appellant contends that (1) the three-eighths mineral interest was divided into a twenty-year term interest and a reversion-ary interest; (2) in reviewing the language of the Batson-Deltic deed, it cannot be reasonably concluded that a present rever-sionary right in |smineral interests was being reserved or excepted; (3) if the challenged language in the Batson-Deltic deed was intended as a reservation or exception of a reversionary right of mineral interests, the reservation or exception fails for lack of certainty; and (4) the trial court’s reliance on Bodcaw Lumber

2010Cottrell v. Beard, 69 Ark.App. 87 , 9 S.W.3d 568 (2000).

2010Cottrell v. Beard, 69 Ark.App. 87 , 9 S.W.3d 568 (2000).

2000Wallner v. Johnson, 21 Ark.

1987Parker v. Parker, 99 Ark. 244 , 138 S.W. 462 (1911).

1987Parker v. Parker, 99 Ark. 244 , 138 S.W. 462 (1911).

1959Dist., 148 Ark. 56 , 228 S.W. 1045, 1046 , this Court said: "A rule, apparently universal in its application, seems to be that—`A reservation or exception in favor of a stranger to a conveyance is void or inoperative,' and that a grantee in a deed `containing a reservation or exception in favor of a stranger to the conveyance is not estopped to deny its efficacy.'" Birkhahn, by virtue of time in possession and the other requisites heretofore set out having been met, obtained title to this one acre through adverse possession.

1959Dist., 148 Ark. 56 , 228 S.W. 1045, 1046 , this Court said: "A rule, apparently universal in its application, seems to be that—`A reservation or exception in favor of a stranger to a conveyance is void or inoperative,' and that a grantee in a deed `containing a reservation or exception in favor of a stranger to the conveyance is not estopped to deny its efficacy.'" Birkhahn, by virtue of time in possession and the other requisites heretofore set out having been met, obtained title to this one acre through adverse possession.

1921A rule, apparently universal in its application, seems to be that “a reservation or exemption in favor of a stranger to a conveyance is void or inoperative,” and that a grantee in a deed “containing a reservation or exception in favor of a stranger to the conveyance is not estopped to deny its efficacy.” Beardslee v. New Berlin Light & Power Company, 207 N. Y. 34 , 32 Am. & Eng.

1911“A reservation is a clause in a deed whereby the grantor reserves some new thing to himself, issuing out of the thing granted and not in esse before; but'an exception is always part of the thing granted, or out of the general words or description of the grant.” 4 Kent, 468; Stone v. Stone, 141 Ia. 438 , 18 Am. & Eng.

1897The reservation of power over the franchise,—that is, over that which is granted,—makes its grant a conditional or revocable contract, whose obligation is not impaired by its revocation or change.” In the Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 , the question was whether Congress had the constitutional power to enact a law compelling the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroad Companies to set aside a portion of their current earnings as a sinking fund for the purpose of meeting a very large indebtedness secured by mortgage upon the roads, and payable at a future day.