## Facts

- C.S. Garrett and his wife executed a 1921 deed conveying to J. Mentor Caldwell “an undivided one sixty-fourth interest” in all oil, gas, and other minerals in and under described land in Navarro County, Texas.
- At execution, the land was subject to an existing oil and gas lease reserving a standard 1/8 landowner’s royalty.
- The deed included additional language stating the conveyance was subject to the existing lease but “covers and includes one-eighth of all of the oil royalty” and related rentals due under that lease.
- The deed further stated that if the existing lease were cancelled or forfeited, the grantee would own “one-eighth of the lease interest and all future rentals,” and also described the grantee as “owning one-eighth of one-eighth” of the minerals.
- The existing lease expired without production; thereafter, a new lease was executed reserving a 1/8 royalty.
- Caldwell’s interest was later owned by Dils Company; Garrett’s widow and daughter were the mineral owner’s heirs.
- The dispute concerned the size and character of the interest conveyed by the 1921 deed under the expired lease and under later leases.

## Issues

1. Whether the deed’s clear grant of an “undivided one sixty-fourth” mineral interest was modified or enlarged by later clauses referring to “one-eighth of the oil royalty,” “one-eighth of the lease interest,” and “one-eighth of one-eighth” of the minerals.
2. Whether, after termination of the original lease and execution of a new lease, the grantee’s successor was entitled only to the fixed 1/64 mineral interest (and its leasing/royalty incidents) or to a larger share measured as 1/8 of the landowner’s 1/8 royalty.
3. How to construe an instrument containing differing fractional descriptions of mineral, royalty, and lease interests.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of civil appeals and affirmed the trial court.
- The Court held the deed conveyed only the undivided 1/64 mineral interest stated in the granting clause.
- The Court construed later references to “one-eighth of the oil royalty,” “one-eighth of the lease interest,” and “one-eighth of one-eighth” as subordinate descriptive provisions that did not expand the basic grant.
- Dils Company was therefore limited to rights consistent with a fixed 1/64 mineral interest under subsequent leasing, not a larger floating share of royalty.

## Legal Principles

- A deed is construed from its four corners, seeking to give effect to the entire instrument where reasonably possible.
- When the granting clause is clear and unambiguous, it controls; later clauses are read to harmonize with it and do not enlarge the estate absent clear language requiring that result.
- Where provisions cannot be reconciled, repugnant later clauses yield to the granting clause.
- References to fractions of royalty or lease benefits may be treated as explanatory of how a fixed mineral fraction is enjoyed under a lease, rather than as creating a different or larger interest that varies with future leases.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a deed plainly granting a 1/64 mineral interest is not expanded by later, inconsistent fractional references to royalty or lease interests; those later clauses are construed, if possible, to describe the enjoyment of the fixed mineral fraction under existing and future leases, so Dils Company took no more than the 1/64 mineral interest.


Garrett v. Dils Co., 157 Tex. 92, 299 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. 1957)