## Facts

- In 1949, Roy L. Parr and related grantors conveyed real property to L.B. Worley and related grantees by deed describing the parcel as “lying to the East of” an existing highway and “containing 25 acres, more or less.”
- Years later, Parr executed a mineral-rights deed to a third party describing the conveyed mineral area as “lying west of the east right of way line” of the same highway, purporting to cover minerals beneath the highway.
- A survey prepared during the dispute showed the parcel would contain about 25.80 acres if measured from the highway’s east right-of-way line, and about 31.57 acres if measured from the highway centerline.
- Parr filed a quiet-title action claiming the 1949 deed did not transfer the mineral interest under the highway and seeking to quiet title to the mineral interest underlying the full width of the highway segment adjacent to Worley’s land.
- Worley counterclaimed, asserting the 1949 deed carried title (including minerals) to the highway centerline and seeking to quiet title to the east half of the highway right-of-way.
- The district court found no material facts in dispute and granted summary judgment for Parr.
- Worley appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Does a deed conveying land “lying to the East of” a highway presumptively include the fee (and mineral estate) to the highway centerline?
2. Does the deed’s acreage statement—“containing 25 acres, more or less”—control the grantor’s intent so as to exclude the highway right-of-way from the conveyance?

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for Parr and remanded.
- The court held the 1949 deed conveyed the fee to the centerline of the highway, so Worley owned the land and mineral interest underlying the east half of the highway right-of-way.
- The phrase “lying to the East of” did not expressly exclude the highway, and any doubt was resolved by the presumption that an abutting conveyance carries title to the centerline.
- The acreage recital “25 acres, more or less” was treated as approximate and not controlling where it conflicted with the centerline presumption tied to an abutting highway.
- Parr’s later unilateral conduct (including later mineral conveyances/leases) could not change the legal effect of the earlier deed, and there was no showing Worley knowingly accepted a boundary at the right-of-way line.

## Legal Principles

- A conveyance of land abutting a road or highway is presumed to pass the fee to the centerline of the right-of-way.
- The centerline presumption can be overcome only by deed language that expressly excludes the roadway or uses words that necessarily exclude it; if the language is doubtful, the presumption controls.
- Quantity statements such as “___ acres, more or less” are generally descriptive and do not control over boundary-related rules or presumptions when they conflict.
- Fee ownership to the centerline includes the mineral estate unless the deed clearly reserves or excludes it.
- A grantor’s later unilateral acts (such as later mineral deeds or leases) do not alter what the earlier deed conveyed; boundary by acquiescence requires knowledge and acceptance by the other party.

## Conclusion

Because Worley’s 1949 deed described land abutting an existing highway and did not clearly exclude the right-of-way, New Mexico’s centerline presumption applied and carried the fee and minerals to the highway centerline; the “25 acres, more or less” recital did not show a different intent, so the summary judgment for Parr was reversed and the case remanded.


Parr v. Worley, 599 P.2d 382 (1979)