saying that “one must show that the substance of the excluded evidence was made known to the court by proffer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked”
How later courts described this case
- saying that “one must show that the substance of the excluded evidence was made known to the court by proffer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked”
- “Said deed reserved to appellee Stone Container the mineral rights to the oil and gas underlying said real estate”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Fain, Judge,
concurring separately.
I write separately merely to indicate that although I regard the proper construction of the language in the deeds of Campbell and her predecessors in title as being otherwise close, for me the absence of any grant of fee simple title to the roadway in the deeds of Johnson and his predecessors in title is dispositive. In the latter set of deeds, the interest conveyed in the roadway is an easement at most. Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that when the parcels were originally severed, the fee simple title to the roadway was intended to remain with Campbell’s predecessor in title.