level this case is really a real state case involving conveyances interested reels it's it's a pretty simple case from that perspective when you sell someone something and you sell all your interest includes everything from all those it is pretty straightforward pretty clear the only thing that has perhaps a little complicated is the context in which this case appears being oil and gas and you need to know a little bit about the underlying context in order to appreciate and some terminology all in this case we have we have noticed  page thirty and this lease grants into the lessee the exclusive rights to come onto the property to prospect for oil and gas purposes now the one thing that's a little different soil what you own is the exclusive right aspect for it and the right to try to attempt to capture it and if you successfully capture it then you can only boil working and it must bear all the expenses of exploration development typically we see the royalty historically and only is one eighth as it is in this case you'll see other people to the deal he did twenty five percent of working in first i'm going to pay my share back they're going to pay the other seventy five percent and i'm going to slice a little part of this off the top or myself as an overall your name right here ramsey herndon was one of the f s and oars that include not only his working interest but also his overriding royalty interest that he had retained when he made the conveyance to specifically addresses over writing royalties modifies or qualifies the earlier general grant and is is your problem with the appellate court not that they made that statement but how they interpret how overriding world interest is still there it's not prosperity she just don't you can bet you sold it to paid you know when you buy something and somebody says i'm going to withhold something from the brand in gold in the context of real estate they have to say so look at the language right but why would the grand tour of put this name a tradition but because they're making reference to the fact that there is an overriding that there is an overriding royalty owned i mean it has sent but if you read this as an exception it doesn't make sense because why the plaintiffs never own the royalty right that was car plaintiffs never owns the royalty what sense does it make to accept something you never own in the first place if you read that as an exception then the word royalty really doesn't make any if you don't want something to be included in the grant then you just say so it's very simple he did it in the exhibit number two you say accept the override that i previously pervade created by instrument based on the arguments made in the end of spines and arguments repeated this morning by mr foreman i think it's important to realize that this case is not we're not dealing with a innocent purchaser crude oil that is being asked to pay twice or when they had no awareness of a third party claim that they had no knowledge of your action that's right we're not talking about the situation we're looking at a situation a contract situation between two entities engaged in the oil business you refer to if they would have said all interest except the over or this is we do not intend this to cover the over that's not what they did and that's not what the darkness says of the document there know was it this is not an interest in realistic now if it's not an interest in real estate then why is it record i mean i think that that argument is spe just is payment is based upon examination of title in the county where wells and you look at these instruments and you examine them and you make a determination as to who owns plaintiff did not get that money the dispute is they say well we kept it and we say no you did and this is all issue of all this there's another lease and all that we don't get that but because that's irrelevant whatever interest there was under that lease you assigned it to us including your over this language that you're looking at down here is simply referring is you're conveying without more people you're conveying everything for all for owners that joy including that over and i think that justice oh in  dissent really summarize the positional position rather well and pointed out that this that the appellate courts somehow say that you you assume rights