Garrett v. Dils Co.
Supreme Court of Texas
157 Tex. 92, 299 S.W.2d 904, 7 O. & G.R. 322 (1957)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Mattie Garrett (plaintiff) conveyed to Mentor Caldwell “an undivided one sixty-fourth interest in and to all of the [minerals] in and under” a tract of land. The grant was subject to an oil and gas lease (Humphrey Lease) that was in existence at the time the deed was executed, but the grant “cover[ed] and include[d]” one-eighth of the one-eighth royalty that was due to Garrett under the Humphrey Lease. Further, the grant to Caldwell stated that if the Humphrey Lease terminated, Caldwell would own one-eighth of the lease interest and all future mineral rentals because he owned “one-eighth of one-eighth of all oil, gas, and other minerals in and under said lands, together with one-eighth interest in all future rents.” The Humphrey Lease expired under its own terms. Garrett executed another oil and gas lease on the land. The new lease also provided for a one-eighth royalty. Dils Company (Dils) (defendant) acquired Caldwell’s interest under the deed from Garrett. Garrett brought suit for a declaratory judgment on Dils’s interest in the land’s minerals. The trial court held that Dils was entitled to one sixty-fourth of the one-eighth royalty under the new lease. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals reversed, finding that Dils was entitled to one-eighth of the one-eighth royalty. Garrett appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hickman, C.J.)
Dissent (Norvell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
