language expresses intent to establish interest of a minimum one-sixteenth royalty, rather than a fixed one-sixteenth fractional royalty
How later courts described this case
- language expresses intent to establish interest of a minimum one-sixteenth royalty, rather than a fixed one-sixteenth fractional royalty
- noting share of production attributable to fraction of royalty is not fixed but "floats" with quantum of royalty contained in lease
- “A ‘fractional royalty’ interest entitles the owner to the specified fractional amount stated in the deed of oil, gas, or other minerals produced from the land and remains constant regardless of the amount of royalty contained in a subsequently-negotiated oil and gas lease.”
- in similar 14 reservation, finding parenthetical “interpreted” preceding language
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHN CAYCE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As a matter of law, the two 1960 deeds at issue reserved a fixed fractional l/16th non-participating royalty interest. The appellee’s contention to the contrary requires us to ignore numerous rules of contract construction, to give no effect to the “being equal to” language in the deeds, and to imply from the “not less than” phrase in the deeds a reservation of interest in favor of the grantor that is more than the plain language of the deeds allows. I would, therefore, grant appellants’ motions for rehearing, reverse the trial court’s partial summary judgment, and render judgment that appellee take nothing on her claims against appellants.