## Facts

- A testatrix executed a will in 1947 owning three tracts of land subject to existing oil-and-gas leases.
- The will devised surface estates among her three children in differing proportions.
- The will also granted each child “an undivided one-third (1/3) of an undivided one-eighth (1/8)” royalty in oil, gas, or other minerals in or under the tracts, using double-fraction language.
- Another clause provided that if the testatrix sold some royalty during her lifetime, the children would “each receive one-third of the remainder of the unsold royalty.”
- Decades later, successors to one child negotiated a lease on one tract reserving a 1/5 royalty, higher than the historically common 1/8 royalty.
- The successors of that child contended the will created a floating royalty, giving each child a 1/3 share of whatever royalty is reserved under future leases.
- The successors of the other two children argued the will fixed each child’s royalty at 1/24 (1/3 × 1/8), so the surface/fee owner alone would receive any lease royalty above 1/8.
- The trial court granted summary judgment construing the royalty as floating; the court of appeals reversed, construing it as a fixed 1/24; the Supreme Court of Texas granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the will’s double-fraction language (“one-third of one-eighth”) created a fixed 1/24 royalty or a floating 1/3 of the landowner’s royalty.
2. Whether the will, read as a whole and in historical context, showed an intent for the children to share future royalties equally regardless of later lease royalty rates.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment.
- The Court held the will devised each child a 1/3 floating non-participating royalty interest, not a fixed 1/24 royalty.
- Under the modern 1/5 royalty lease, each child’s share was 1/3 of 1/5, rather than a constant 1/24.

## Legal Principles

- A will is construed to ascertain and effectuate the testatrix’s intent as expressed in the instrument as a whole, derived from its four corners.
- Double-fraction royalty language is not construed by mechanical multiplication when the surrounding text and structure indicate a different meaning.
- In older oil-and-gas instruments, “1/8” may function as a term of art referring to the landowner’s royalty, not a strict numerical ceiling.
- Provisions reflecting equal division among children, including clauses addressing disposition of royalty interests, support an interpretation that preserves equal sharing of royalties over time.
- When will language is ambiguous, a presumption may favor equal treatment of children, consistent with the instrument’s overall plan.

## Conclusion

The Court construed the will’s double-fraction royalty clauses in context and held they conveyed each child a 1/3 floating royalty interest tied to the royalty reserved in future leases, ensuring equal sharing of royalty benefits even when lease royalties exceed the historical 1/8 norm.


Hysaw v. Dawkins, 483 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2016)