Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Gore Oil Co. v. Roosth

Court of Appeals of Texas
158 S.W.3d 596 (2005)


Peyton McKnight issued a warranty deed, granting a tract of land to Eagle Investment Company (Eagle). The land was subject to an outstanding mineral and royalty interest. The deed stated that McKnight reserved “free of all liens a full one-eighth (1/8) non-participating royalty interest in the Property subject to any previously conveyed or reserved mineral interest.” The deed also stated that the conveyance was “made and accepted subject to all restrictions, reservations, covenants, conditions, rights-of-way and easements now outstanding.” Steve Roosth (plaintiff), the successor in interest to McKnight, sued for a declaratory judgment as to who should bear the burden of the outstanding royalty. Roosth claimed that McKnight’s one-eighth royalty reservation was in addition to the prior, outstanding royalty interest, and thus Roosth should be entitled to a full one-eighth royalty. Roosth also sought back pay, as the successors in interest to Eagle (defendants) had reduced their royalty payments to Roosth by the amount of the prior, outstanding royalty. The defendants claimed that the reservation in the McKnight deed was limited by the prior outstanding royalty, meaning that Roosth was entitled to a one-eighth royalty minus the outstanding royalty amount. The trial court found that the deed was ambiguous, because the two subject-to clauses could not be reconciled. The trial court thus looked to an affidavit filed by the attorney for Eagle, which was the only extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent presented at trial. The attorney’s affidavit stated that he understood that the deed reserved McKnight a full one-eighth royalty. The trial court thus held that the deed reserved McKnight a full one-eighth royalty, in addition to the prior, outstanding royalty. The trial court ordered the defendants to pay Roosth past royalties. The defendants appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Arnot III, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.