Clark v. Carter

Supreme Court of Mississippi · 1977 · Property

PropertyMineral deedsRoyalty transfersDeed interpretationmineralsroyaltymineral deedroyalty transfer

Facts

Will Carter and Dollie Carter executed a Form R-101 titled "Mineral Right and Royalty Transfer" to W.T. Rowell on June 26, 1944. After the land description, the instrument contained a typed clause stating that the grantors intended "to convey by this instrument to the grantee, a transfer of all royalty owned by us" to minerals under land they owned in Jasper County. On the same date, the Carters also executed an oil, gas, and mineral lease to Rowell, and both instruments were witnessed and acknowledged by the same people and recorded virtually simultaneously. The court noted that the Carters were illiterate or largely illiterate and inferred that Rowell prepared the instruments.

Issue

Whether the June 26, 1944 Form R-101 instrument should be construed as a mineral deed conveying mineral ownership or as a transfer of royalty only.

Rule

When a deed or contract is clear and harmonious, the court looks only to the language of the instrument. When the language is ambiguous, the court may consider extrinsic evidence, including the subject matter, the parties' situation, surrounding circumstances, and contemporaneously executed instruments concerning the same transaction; ambiguities are construed against the party who prepared the instrument.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Natchez, Mississippi, Lena Brooks signed a printed mineral-transfer form conveying an undivided interest in oil and gas under her land to Mason Pike. Immediately after the legal description, a typed sentence stated: "Grantor intends by this instrument to assign only the royalty now owned by grantor in the above land." No other transaction documents were executed that day.

If a dispute later arises over whether Lena conveyed minerals or only royalty, what is the best first step for the court under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that if the language is clear, definite, explicit, harmonious, and free from ambiguity, the court looks only to the instrument itself. But when the language falls short of those qualities, the court may resort to extrinsic evidence. A typed statement that the grantor intends to assign only royalty creates at least enough uncertainty to require the court first to decide whether the instrument is ambiguous.