## Facts

- W.R. Blake Jr. owned the surface and unsevered mineral estate in a 348-acre tract in Hockley County, Texas.
- In 1938, Blake Jr. conveyed to W.R. Blake Sr. “an undivided one-sixteenth (1/16) interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under and that may be produced from” the land, adding that the grantee “does not participate in any rentals or leases,” and granting ingress/egress and development-related rights.
- In 1939, Blake Jr. conveyed the tract to D.A. Clark by warranty deed, describing the property as “save and except one-sixteenth (1/16) of the minerals, non-participating, which has previously been sold.”
- The tract was later leased under an oil and gas lease reserving a 1/8 royalty to the lessors.
- After a producing well was completed, the Clark/Altman successors and the Blake heirs disputed whether the 1938 instrument gave the Blake heirs (a) a 1/16 royalty interest (claimed to equal one-half of the 1/8 reserved royalty) or (b) a 1/16 mineral interest (yielding 1/16 of the lessors’ 1/8 royalty).

## Issues

1. Whether the 1938 deed conveyed a 1/16 royalty interest or a 1/16 interest in the mineral fee subject to non-participating limitations.
2. If the deed conveyed a non-participating mineral interest, how the grantee’s share of the lease’s reserved 1/8 royalty is calculated.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ construction of the deed and rendered judgment.
- The Court held the 1938 deed conveyed a 1/16 interest in the mineral fee, not a 1/16 royalty interest.
- The “does not participate in any rentals or leases” language limited certain incidents of mineral ownership (executive/rental participation) but did not convert the interest into royalty.
- The ingress/egress and development rights in the deed supported classification as a mineral interest rather than a pure royalty interest.
- As a result, the Blake heirs were entitled to 1/16 of the lessors’ reserved 1/8 royalty (i.e., 1/128 of total production), not one-half of the reserved royalty.

## Legal Principles

- Deed interpretation focuses on the instrument’s text as a whole to determine intent, giving effect to the language used within the instrument’s four corners.
- Language conveying an “undivided [fraction] interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under and that may be produced” generally denotes a mineral fee interest.
- A grant of a mineral interest may be coupled with restrictions on participation in leasing and rentals, creating a non-participating mineral interest rather than a royalty interest.
- Granting possessory and operational rights (e.g., ingress/egress and development rights) is characteristic of mineral ownership and weighs against construing the interest as a mere royalty.
- When the interest is a fractional mineral fee, the holder’s royalty under a later lease is the fractional mineral ownership multiplied by the lease royalty reserved to the lessor.

## Conclusion

The Court construed the 1938 instrument as conveying a 1/16 non-participating mineral fee interest, so the grantee’s successors took only 1/16 of the lessors’ 1/8 reserved royalty rather than a fixed 1/16 royalty interest in production.


Altman v. Blake, 712 S.W.2d 117 (Tex. 1986)