1

Certiorari Granted, October 25, 2011, No. 33,147

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Opinion Number: 2011-NMCA-108

Filing Date: July 19, 2011

Docket No. 29,812

DELMA E. PRATHER, as Trustee of the 

DELMA E. PRATHER REVOCABLE TRUST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PATRICK H. LYONS, Commissioner of

Public Lands of the State of New Mexico,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

MAINLINE ROCK & BALLAST, INC.,

Defendant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TORRANCE COUNTY

Matthew G. Reynolds, District Judge

Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall, LLP

Michael R. Comeau

Stephen J. Lauer

Sharon W. Horndeski

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

New Mexico State Land Office

John L. Sullivan, Associate Counsel

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
2

Brennan & Sullivan PA

Michael W. Brennan

Santa Fe, NM

for Amicus Curiae N.M. Farm & Livestock Bureau

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

{1} State trust land was originally sold in 1930 to a purchaser who bought the land for

grazing purposes. This original purchaser received a patent in 1947 and sold the land in

1982. The land contained surface and subsurface metamorphic rock, and the character of

the surface and its use for grazing did not change from 1930 to 1982. After the 1982 sale,

the successor landowner’s lessee mined, crushed, and sold the rock for use primarily as

ballast for railroad beds and paid the landowner-lessor royalties. In this action, Plaintiff

Delma E. Prather, as trustee of the Delma E. Prather Revocable Trust, is the successor to the

original purchaser of the state trust land. She sued Patrick H. Lyons, Commissioner of

Public Lands of the State of New Mexico, to quiet title to the rock when the Commissioner

asserted ownership of the rock and a right to royalties based on a general mineral reservation

in the 1947 patent, which we refer to in this opinion as “the mineral reservation.” After a

bench trial, the district court held for the Commissioner. Our issue is whether the rock in

the state trust land acquired by the original and successor purchasers constituted a mineral

reserved to the State under the mineral reservation.

{2} On appeal, Plaintiff requests that we adopt and apply the “surface destruction

doctrine” in arriving at a decision that the parties to the original 1930 purchase transaction

did not intend the rock to be considered a mineral within the mineral reservation. Relying

in part on Bogle Farms, Inc. v. Baca, 1996-NMSC-051, 122 N.M. 422, 925 P.2d 1184,

which states that title to state trust land should be determined on a case-by-case basis

considering the intent of the original parties and not by a rule of property nor by conveyance

by implication, the Commissioner argues against adoption of the surface destruction doctrine

and further argues that the evidence of intent, considering the totality of circumstances,

supported the district court’s decision. In regard to the evidence, Plaintiff contends that the

district court misread critical transactional documents and that its decision was based on

irrelevant and insubstantial evidence. We hold that substantial evidence supported the

district court’s findings of fact under Bogle Farms’ required analysis of the intent of the

parties to the original sale transaction that the intent of the conveyance transaction was that

the rock was included in the reservation of “all minerals of whatsoever kind” in the patent.

BACKGROUND
3

{3} The background recited here is largely taken from undisputed findings of fact of the

district court. There exist two purchase transactions. J.C. Shelton acquired a fee simple

interest in Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 12 East, Torrance County, New Mexico

(Section 16), pursuant to a 1930 purchase contract with the then Commissioner of Public

Lands of the State of New Mexico. Ms. Prather and her husband purchased Section 16 in

1982 from Shelton’s successor in interest and, after her husband’s death, Ms. Prather created

her trust and transferred Section 16 into her name as trustee. Ms. Prather, as trustee of the

Delma E. Prather Revocable Trust, is Plaintiff in the present action. For convenience, in this

opinion we refer to Ms. Prather, individually and as trustee, and also to Mr. and Mrs. Prather,

as “Plaintiff.” We refer to Defendant Commissioner Lyons and past Commissioners of

Public Lands as “the Commissioner.” Pertinent documentary history relating to Shelton’s

and Plaintiff’s acquisitions of Section 16 is as follows. 

{4} The State acquired title to Section 16 pursuant to an Act of Congress approved June

21, 1898, called the Ferguson Act, confirmed in an Act of Congress approved June 20, 1910,

effective as of November 16, 1915, called the New Mexico Enabling Act. See Bogle Farms,

1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 9 (reciting the history of the transfer of land by the federal government

to New Mexico when New Mexico attained statehood to be held in trust for schools, citing

the Enabling Act). Under the Ferguson Act, the United States granted Section 16, among

other lands, to the Territory of New Mexico for the support of common schools, but

excluded lands that were mineral in character. In confirming the grant, the Enabling Act also

excluded mineral lands. The district court found that “mineral lands” is a term of art that

means “lands known (at the time) to be more valuable for minerals and must contain

minerals in sufficient quantity to justify expenditure for their extraction[,]” and “[t]he land

must also be more valuable for mineral extraction than other uses.” Title was confirmed in

Patent No. 1205336 issued by the United States on February 23, 1960.

{5} The district court found that in 1919 when there was a rush to obtain leases from the

State for oil and gas exploration, the State Legislature authorized the Commissioner to

classify the lands owned by the State as mineral or non-mineral. The State Land Office

(SLO) Administrative Rule No. 1, 1919, dated April 4, 1919, designated and classified all

lands of the State as mineral lands. See State ex rel. Otto v. Field, 31 N.M. 120, 128-31, 241

P. 1027, 1030-32 (1925) (recounting the history of Administrative Rule No. 1); see also

1912 N.M. Laws, ch. 82, § 1 (creating the SLO). Administrative Rule No. 1 was issued to

afford the State “maximum protection from the purchase of lands as non-mineral, which may

in fact be mineral lands or subject to classification as such[.]” The district court also found

that in 1925 the SLO issued regulations requiring the State to reserve all minerals when

selling state trust lands. The district court further found that, prior to 1930, Section 16 was

owned in fee by the State, was uncultivated and was useful for pasture or grazing purposes,

and was largely composed of Pre-Cambian metamorphic rock.

{6} In August 1930, Shelton applied to purchase Section 16 from the Commissioner. In

the form application, Shelton stated that Section 16 was grazing in character; that there was

no growing timber, coal, minerals or oil and gas known to be on the land; that Shelton
4

intended to use the land to “graze sheep or raise cattle”; and Shelton signed under a

paragraph which read, “the land applied for herein is essentially non-mineral land, and that

this application is not made for the purpose of obtaining title to mineral, coal, oil or gas lands

fraudulently, but with the sole object of obtaining title to the land applied for for grazing and

agricultural purposes.” According to the district court’s findings, the law required that state

trust lands such as Section 16 be sold at their “appraised true value,” and Shelton provided

an appraisal for Section 16 on a form provided by the SLO entitled “Appraisement of

Grazing and Agricultural Lands” which was sworn to and addressed to the Commissioner.

See NMSA 1978, § 19-7-9 (1981) (amended 1989 and 2009); 1910 N.M. Laws, ch. 310, §

10 (Enabling Act). In this appraisal, the appraiser answered “no” to the question: “Is there

mineral or coal on the land?” He stated that the land was “all grazing land” and swore in a

non-mineral affidavit that he was well acquainted with the land and that: 

there is not, to my knowledge, within the limits thereof, any vein or lode of

quartz or other rock in places bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, or

copper, or any deposit of coal; that there is not, within the limits of said land,

to my knowledge, any placer, cement, gravel, salt or other valuable mineral

deposits; that no portion of said land is worked for mineral during any part

of the year by any person or persons; and said land is essentially non-mineral

in character.

{7} In the contract for the purchase of land between Shelton and the Commissioner that

followed, dated in November 1930, Shelton agreed that the land was being purchased “for

the purpose of grazing and agriculture only.” He also agreed that:

while the land herein contracted for is believed to be essentially non-mineral,

should mineral be discovered therein it is expressly understood and agreed

that this contract is based upon the express condition that the minerals therein

shall be and are reserved in the fund or institution to which the land belongs,

together with right of way to the Commissioner, or anyone acting under his

authority, at any and all times to enter upon said land and mine and remove

the minerals therefrom without let or hindrance.

{8} In 1947 the Commissioner issued Patent for State Land No. 1906, pursuant to which

he conveyed to Shelton’s widow the State’s interest in Section 16, but reserved to the State,

by way of the mineral reservation, “all minerals of whatsoever kind, including oil and gas,

in the lands so granted,” and also reserved the “right to prospect for, mine, produce and

remove the same, and perform any and all acts necessary in connection therewith[.]”

Plaintiff purchased Section 16 in 1982 for the purpose of using it to graze cattle. The

mineral reservation was noted in the chain of title. The character of Section 16 remained

unchanged from the time of Shelton’s purchase to the time of Plaintiff’s 1982 acquisition.

{9} In 1998 Plaintiff entered into a license agreement with Ralph J. Conway to explore

for quarry rock that might be suitable for railroad ballast and other construction aggregates.
5

Mainline Rock and Ballast, Inc. (Mainline) entered the picture in 2003 and collected surface

rocks, had this rock tested to determine if Section 16 would be suitable for extracting rock

and creating railroad ballast, sought to secure an exclusive contract with Burlington Northern

Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) to supply railroad ballast, had the mineral content of the rock

analyzed and tested to determine if it met BNSF’s specifications, and drilled test holes and

had subsurface samples tested. Further, after obtaining an option of Conway’s right, title,

and interest in his lease, and after exercising that option with Plaintiff’s consent, Mainline

sought and obtained a zoning change of 120 acres of Section 16 from agriculture to a special

use district to construct its quarry.

{10} In 2004 Plaintiff and Conway entered into a twenty-five-year lease agreement, which

stated that Plaintiff owned the subsurface mineral estate of Section 16 and referred to mining

and characterized the rock as minerals. Mainline constructed a quarry and began removing

rock and crushing it primarily for railroad ballast and also for other aggregates, including

mainline ballast, yard ballast, modified ballast, chips, fines, rip-rap, surge, and roadbase.

The district court’s findings contain a detailed discussion and history relating to rock, natural

aggregates, industrial minerals, crushed stone, railroad ballast, and sales of crushed stone and

railroad ballast. Mainline removed thousands of cubic yards of overburden and used

explosives to blast the rock out of the deposit. It employed ongoing testing of samples to

assure that it met BNSF’s ballast specifications. As of April 2009, when the court’s findings

were entered, Mainline had sold over 2.5 million tons of ballast to BNSF and over 300,000

tons of byproduct. Mainline paid full royalties to Plaintiff until representatives of the

Commissioner asserted the State’s mineral interest; following a settlement agreement with

Mainline and a Rule 5 Mining Lease issued by the Commissioner obligating Mainline to

make royalty payments to the Commissioner, Mainline reduced its royalty payments to

Plaintiff.

{11} Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Commissioner for declaratory judgment and

other relief and later filed an amended complaint joining Mainline as a party defendant.

Plaintiff sought to quiet title in Section 16 including the rock and to recover damages as well

as remission of the royalties paid to the Commissioner. The Commissioner counterclaimed

seeking to quiet title in the mineral interest in Section 16 and for other relief. The district

court entered a partial final judgment in which the court determined that the Commissioner

was “the owner of all crushed stone mined, produced[,] and sold from Section 16 . . .

including, but not limited to, all crushed stone mined, produced[,] and sold pursuant to leases

issued by Plaintiff and by the Commissioner.” Plaintiff appeals.

{12} Plaintiff contends on appeal that we should adopt the surface destruction doctrine and

apply it in determining that the intent of the original parties was to exclude the rock from the

mineral reservation. She further contends that the transactional documents reflecting

Shelton’s purchase are at variance with the district court’s ruling, that the court’s decision

was based on irrelevant and insubstantial evidence, and that statutes in effect at material

times all buttress the conclusion that the rock in Section 16 was not a mineral or was not

intended to fall within the mineral reservation. The rock with which we are dealing is
6

described by Plaintiff as “common rock,” which Plaintiff claims means rock with no

particular or valuable mineral content and rock that is just “hard and heavy.” 

DISCUSSION 

{13} All arguments attempt to provide a route for the elusive quests for (1) the

understanding of what “minerals” is intended to mean and include within the mineral

reservation, and (2) the intent of the parties to the 1930 original purchase contract as to

whether the rock was to be considered a mineral within the mineral reservation. We preface

our discussion of the parties’ arguments with a discussion of Bogle Farms’ mandated intentof-the-original-parties test and rejection of case law establishing a rule of property governing

reservation of mineral rights in state trust land sales. We also set out the district court’s

findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to intent. 

The Intent Issue: Bogle Farms and the District

Court’s Findings and Conclusions in the Present Case

{14} In Bogle Farms, our Supreme Court reviewed an appeal by the Commissioner from

a district court’s partial summary judgment entered in favor of twenty-six plaintiffs who

sought a declaratory judgment holding that their contracts for the purchase of state trust

lands did not reserve sand and gravel to the State. 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 1. The district court

had ruled based on collateral estoppel that the Commissioner was precluded from arguing

that the general mineral reservations in the contracts effectively reserved the State’s interest

in sand and gravel. Id. The estoppel issue arose based on our Supreme Court’s decision in

Roe v. State ex rel. State Highway Department, 103 N.M. 517, 710 P.2d 84 (1985), overruled

by Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051. Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 1. In Roe, the Court

ruled that title to sand and gravel passed to the purchaser along with the surface estate where

the purchase contracts and patents did not specifically reserve sand and gravel to the State.

Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 1; Roe, 103 N.M. at 521, 710 P.2d at 88. Before we

discuss Bogle Farms further, we must discuss Roe in more detail, along with Burris v. State

ex rel. State Highway Commission, 88 N.M. 146, 538 P.2d 418 (1975), which preceded and

was overruled by Roe.

{15} In Burris, state land was sold to the plaintiffs by contract and a patent followed. Id.

at 146, 538 P.2d at 418. The purchase contract stated that the land was being purchased for

the purpose of grazing and agriculture only, and the patent reserved “to the [S]tate . . . all

minerals of whatsoever kind, including oil and gas, in the lands so granted[.]” Id. at 147,

538 P.2d at 419 (internal quotation marks omitted). The application to purchase stated that

“the land . . . is essentially non-mineral land, and that this application is not made for the

purpose of obtaining title to mineral, including but not limited to caliche, sand and gravel,

coal, oil or gas lands fraudulently but with the sole object of obtaining title to the surface of

the land applied for.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In approaching a decision, the

Court in Burris stated that “apart from any governing statute, the issue is whether the parties

intended that sand and gravel are, or are not, to be . . . classified [as a mineral,]” a question
1

 Bogle Farms discusses seven cases, the earliest dating back to 1940. See Bd. of

Cnty. Comm’rs v. Good, 44 N.M. 495, 498, 105 P.2d 470, 472 (1940) (stating that sand,

gravel, ordinary clay, and caliche fall within the term “mineral”).

7

that “is normally resolved by the pertinent documents and the actions of the parties[.]” Id.

The Burris Court distinguished and did not follow State ex rel. State Highway Commission

v. Trujillo, 82 N.M. 694, 487 P.2d 122 (1971), overruled by Champlin Petroleum Co. v.

Lyman, 103 N.M. 407, 708 P.2d 319 (1985), which was decided on a factual underpinning

consisting solely of a patent that reserved to the United States “all the coal and other

minerals in the lands” and which held that sand and gravel were not minerals. Burris, 88

N.M. at 147, 538 P.2d at 419 (internal quotation marks omitted). Burris rejected Trujillo as

applicable authority because in Burris there was “a great deal more documentation casting

light on the intention of the parties,” namely, the application and the contracts. Id. Relying

on those documents, the Court in Burris held “the parties intended to reserve sand and

gravel,” because under the terms of the documents, the State “expressly reserv[ed] all

minerals in very clear, unambiguous and all-inclusive language, without qualification,

restriction[,] or limitations of any kind.” Id. at 147-48, 538 P.2d at 419-20. 

{16} Roe, an inverse condemnation action, overruled Burris. Roe, 103 N.M. at 517, 521,

710 P.2d at 84, 88. The Roe Court noted that, in Burris, the application, but not the purchase

contract, contained the words “sand and gravel.” Roe, 103 N.M. at 521, 710 P.2d at 88.

Focusing on the application, Roe stated that “[a]n application is merely a request to purchase,

and its provisions do not affect the title to the property[,]” and Roe concluded that whether

title passed was not determined by what was stated in the application, but was determined

“by the conveyances themselves, the purchase contract[,] and the patent.” Id. Therefore, the

Court required that “[f]or the State to reserve sand and gravel, a provision so specifying must

be included in these conveyances.” Id. The Roe Court “determine[d] that although the

original applicant for the [plaintiffs’] property did not apply for title to sand and gravel, such

title nevertheless passed with the surface estate since sand and gravel were not specifically

reserved by the purchase contract and patent.” Id.

{17} In Bogle Farms, the Court discussed Roe along with other pertinent New Mexico

cases.1

 Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 8-22, 33. Overruling Roe, Bogle Farms rejected

Roe’s strict definition of minerals in the general reservation clause of the conveyance

documents to exclude sand and gravel. Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 34-35. Bogle

Farms also rejected the purchasers’ collateral estoppel, stare decisis, and rule of property

arguments favoring Roe’s ruling. Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 22, 27-33, 36. 

{18} The Court in Bogle Farms read Roe as erroneously deciding the mineral reservation

issue based on a rule that affected title to property, thereby adopting a “rule of property,”

instead of deciding the issue based on the intention of the parties, and the Court read Roe as

erroneously permitting conveyance of title by implication. Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051,

¶¶ 30, 34-35. Bogle Farms remanded for evidentiary proceedings given the lack of a specific
8

mineral reservation and the need for the district court to consider evidence outside the face

of the contract to determine the meaning intended for the term “mineral” when the term was

shown under the circumstances to be ambiguous. Id. ¶ 35. Bogle Farms returned to Burris’

case-by-case approach “based on the principle that in contract cases the role of the court is

to give effect to the intention of the contracting parties.” Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051,

¶ 22. The Court in Bogle Farms noted that “prior to Roe this Court had held in Burris that

a general mineral reservation included sand and gravel”; however, the Court left it open for

the district court on remand to determine whether the parties intended to include sand and

gravel within the term “mineral.” Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 33-35.

{19} Among Bogle Farms’ several statements applicable to the present case are the

following. In cases involving state trust land, the determination whether a material or

substance is included within a general mineral reservation must be done on a case-by-case

basis. Id. ¶ 22. The issue is whether the parties to the original sale transaction intended that

the State reserve the material or substance at issue. Id. ¶ 35. There exists “a strong public

interest in the protection of state land and its products, as reflected in the Enabling Act’s

requirement that no sale or other disposal [of state land or its natural productions] shall be

made for a consideration less than the [appraised true] value.” Id. ¶ 26 (alterations in

original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And “title to state trust lands

should not be conveyed by implication.” Id. ¶ 34. 

{20} What material or substance comes within the word “minerals” in the mineral

reservation is not altogether clear. The district court in the present case determined that the

mineral reservation was ambiguous. Our Supreme Court has referred to this ambiguity. See

id. ¶¶ 20, 35 (stating that “the Roe Court may have been attempting to resolve the ambiguity

once and for all and to put to rest an issue that had given rise to a great deal of litigation”

and, further, that “[i]f there is not a specific reservation, the trial court must look to evidence

outside the face of the contract to determine the meaning intended for the term ‘mineral’

when that term has been shown under the circumstances to be ambiguous”); Rickelton v.

Universal Constructors, Inc., 91 N.M. 479, 480, 576 P.2d 285, 286 (1978) (stating that

“[w]hat the Legislature meant to be included as a ‘mineral’ is not well defined in New

Mexico” and that the Court had “recognized that the category of ‘minerals’ is a flexible

one”). Courts outside New Mexico have referred to the ambiguity of the words “minerals”

and “mineral reservation.” See United States ex rel. S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Hess, 348 F.3d

1237, 1241 (10th Cir. 2003); Kinney v. Keith, 128 P.3d 297, 303 (Colo. App. 2005); Resler

v. Rogers, 139 N.W.2d 379, 382 (Minn. 1965). In the present case, rock that might fit the

description of the rock in question was not specifically mentioned in any of the 1930

transaction-related documents or in the 1947 patent. Further, there exists no testimony of

the original contracting parties.

{21} The district court entered several findings of fact that appear to relate to the issue of

intent. A number of findings relate to the character of the rock. The court noted that “[t]he

rock[] or crushed stone” used for railroad ballast has certain characteristics and value, that

a railroad’s easy access to a rock quarry is important, and that as of 1915, railroad tracks,
9

which still exist, run near Section 16, about two miles from the quarry site ultimately

constructed by Mainline. The court further noted that “[r]ailroad ballast is the final product

of certain mineral aggregates (rock) that meet railroad specifications for density, hardness[,]

and durability . . .[,] is a construction use of the industrial material called ‘crushed stone[,]’”

and that “[a]n industrial mineral is a valuable, usually nonmetallic rock or related material

that is natural or man-made, excluding fuels, metals, and gems.” 

{22} In further findings, the court discussed the United States Bureau of Mines’ 1932-33

Minerals Yearbook that characterized crushed stone as an industrial mineral used for railroad

ballast, and the court pointed to the chapter entitled “Crushed and Broken Stone” that stated,

“[s]ince the advent of concrete[,] the crushed-stone industry has far surpassed the dimensionstone industry in tonnage and value.” The court found that, in 1932, there was no report of

railroad ballast sales in New Mexico and several other states, including Texas, and that

“[t]he lack of reporting probably was the result of the lack of demand for new construction

caused by the Great Depression.” However, the court also found that, as reflected in the

1947 Minerals Yearbook, “[b]y 1947, the crushed[-]stone industry . . . had turned around . . .,

[and s]ales of crushed stone were at an all-time high,” and “[i]n New Mexico, the sale or use

by railroads of railroad ballast exceeded 300,000 short tons[.]” 

{23} In regard to crushed-stone production after 1947, the court found that in 1980

railroad ballast and other construction aggregates and roadstone accounted for twenty-seven

percent of the total crushed stone used in construction in the United States. The court

referred to a United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1594 (1993) entitled Natural

Aggregates of the Conterminous United States stating that crushed stone and sand and gravel

are the two main sources of natural aggregates and amount to about one-half of the mining

volume in the United States. In addition, referring to what was reported in a publication of

the New Mexico Geological Society and the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral

Resources, the court noted that crushed stone was included as a common industrial mineral,

along with sand and gravel and caliche, and that “[i]n 2003 the top nonfuel minerals in New

Mexico were, by value, potash and copper, followed by construction sand and gravel,

crushed stone, and cement[.]” 

{24} The court entered the following further findings that relate more particularly to

intent.

62. The Sheltons acquired Section 16 to be used for grazing. 

63. The Sheltons did not intend to exploit the rock deposit in

Section 16 by mining and selling the rock or leasing Section 16 for the

purpose of having the rock mined and sold.

64. Inclusion of the rock within the scope of the mineral

reservation in the 1930 contract and the 1947 patent, particularly where the

rock is being mined and sold commercially, serves the purposes that the
10

parties had in agreeing that the State would sell the land and that [the]

Sheltons would purchase it.

65. Mrs. Shelton’s subjective intention as to the mineral

reservation in Patent No. 1906 is unknown, but her objective intention as

evidenced by the surrounding circumstances, including her husband’s earlier

contract with the Commissioner for the acquisition of Section 16 and her

subsequent use of Section 16 for grazing, was in accordance with the State’s

intention to maximize its monetary opportunities for mineral extraction if

minerals were ever to be discovered on the property. 

66. The State’s intention in reserving all minerals of whatsoever

kind when it issued Patent No. 1906 for land that was apparently not mineralbearing was to maximize the State’s opportunities for royalties to be derived

from any and all minerals that might later be discovered on Section 16.

67. The Commissioner . . . considered industrial minerals as

“minerals of whatsoever kind” in Patent No. 1906 given the widespread

understanding of industrial minerals as some of the most valuable minerals

in the United States for highest monetary sales from earlier in the 20th

century through the year 1947.

68. In 1947, the Commissioner . . . considered crushed stone as

an industrial mineral, as it was customarily considered in the mineral trade

markets.

69. Based on the parties’ language in their dealings with one

another, their conduct, the objectives they sought to accomplish, and the

surrounding circumstance, the parties intended that crushed stone, an

industrial mineral, was to be considered a mineral in the 1930 Shelton

contract to purchase and one of those “minerals of whatsoever kind” included

in the State’s mineral reservation in Patent No. 1906.

70. The fact that surface rock was visible on Section 16 was not

the same as a determination that such rock was or was not a mineral under

the 1930 Shelton contract to purchase or under Patent No. 1906’s mineral

reservation.

71. The crushed stone discovered on Section 16 in 2003 as a result

of extensive on-site and laboratory testing is a mineral under the 1930

Shelton contract to purchase and one of those “minerals of whatsoever kind”

reserved by the State in Patent No. 1906.
11

72. Even if the parties disagreed as to the meaning of the term

“mineral” in the 1930 Shelton contract to purchase or the phrase “minerals

of whatsoever kind” in the 1947 patent, or if the parties’ intentions could not

be determined, it is most reasonable that the term and phrase include the

industrial mineral known as crushed stone, based on all surrounding

circumstances.

After setting out the parties’ proof burdens, the district court entered the following

conclusions of law that appear to relate to intent.

5. Title to state trust land cannot be conveyed by implication. 

. . . .

7. The parties need not be aware that the property has minerals

in order to create a mineral estate.

8. Authority and responsibility for managing and conveying

Section 16 was vested in the Commissioner . . . pursuant to N.M. Const., art.

XIII, § 2 and N.M. Laws 1912, ch. 82, §§ 1-2 (currently codified at NMSA

1978, §§ 19-2-1 [(1913)] and 19-2-2[ (1963)]).

9. Pursuant to Section 1 of the Ferguson Act and Sections 6 and

10 of the Enabling Act, the State held title to Section 16 in trust for the

purpose of supporting common schools. The trust terms required that “the

natural products and money proceeds” of Section 16 “shall be subject to the

same trust[]” and that “[a]ll lands, leaseholds, timber[,] and other products

of land before being offered [for sale or lease] shall be appraised at their true

value, and no sale or other disposal thereof shall be made for a

consideration.” [(Alterations in original.)]

10. Because Section 16 was classified by the Commissioner as

mineral land, the Commissioner was required as a matter of state law to issue

a limited patent containing a reservation to the [S]tate of New Mexico of all

the minerals in Section 16, together with the right to the [S]tate or its

grantees, to prospect for, mine[,] and remove the same. NMSA 1978, § 19-

10-27 [(1925)].

11. The question of whether a state trust land patent reservation

of “all minerals of whatsoever kind, including oil and gas” may be resolved

by examining the intent of the parties to the transaction. The intent of the

parties may be determined by examining the parties’ language and conduct,

the objectives they sought to accomplish, and the surrounding circumstances.
12

12. A purchaser of [s]tate lands from the Commissioner owns the

surface and subsurface of the purchased property, save for such minerals as

are reserved, under statutory authority by the Commissioner. 

13. Patent No. 1906’s mineral reservation was ambiguous.

Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the [c]ourt as fact-finder to resolve the

ambiguity.

14. If the parties, at the time Patent No. 1906 was issued, had the

same understanding of the mineral reservation, then that shared meaning

controls.

15. If the parties had a different understanding of the mineral

reservation in Patent No. 1906 at the time the patent was issued, then the

[c]ourt as fact-finder is required to give the meaning that it finds to be most

reasonable, taking into consideration all the circumstances, including the

intentions of the parties, the words that the parties used, the purposes the

parties sought to achieve, custom in the trade, the parties’ course of dealing,

the parties’ course of performance, whether a party, at the time the contract

was entered into, knew or should have known that the other party interpreted

the term[s] differently. [(Second alteration in original.)]

16. Plaintiff has not met her burden of proving her claims that the

rock at issue was not included in the reservation of “all minerals of

whatsoever kind” in Patent No. 1906.

17. The Commissioner has met his burden of proving his

counterclaims that the rock at issue was included in the reservation of “all

minerals of whatsoever kind” in Patent No. 1906.

Plaintiff’s Surface Destruction Doctrine and Other Arguments

{25} Plaintiff states that “[t]he crux of this appeal is whether New Mexico should adopt

the surface destruction doctrine.” That question is one of law, which we review de novo.

Romero v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2007-NMCA-004, ¶ 21, 140 N.M. 848, 149 P.3d 945;

Poncho v. Bowdoin, 2006-NMCA-013, ¶ 32, 138 N.M. 857, 126 P.3d 1221. Plaintiff’s in-anutshell request of this Court is

to follow the lead of most other states in adopting the “surface destruction”

doctrine, which holds that, in the absence of clear contrary intent, where

materials alleged to be “minerals” are plainly visible on the surface, and

where the surface would have to be destroyed in order to “mine” them, the

parties could not have intended those materials to be “minerals” because, if
2

See cases cited infra note 3.

13

they were, the mineral reservation would swallow up the grant and render it

worthless.

Plaintiff cites to courts and commentators that recognize the “complex and hopeless search

for the ‘true intentions’ of the original parties” and that are critical of the attempt “to [divine]

the subjective intent of the parties” after decades have passed. Plaintiff contends that only

the objective intent of the parties to the original transaction can be ascertained and that

objective intent is to be derived from only three relevant factors, namely: (1) the surface

destruction doctrine; (2) statutes in effect at the time of the original transaction; and (3) the

circumstances at the time, including records, documents, and actions of the parties. See

Downstate Stone Co. v. United States, 712 F.2d 1215, 1217-20 (7th Cir. 1983) (relying on

a surface destruction rationale and statutes and on the circumstances in considering whether

a mining company had title to quarry limestone under a mineral reservation contained in

conveyances to the United States). Plaintiff challenges as irrelevant and insubstantial

findings of fact of the district court that recite post-1947 facts, circumstances, and

publications, insofar as the court intended the findings to relate to the intent of the original

parties. Plaintiff also challenges those findings which indicate that the rock was a mineral.

{26} Plaintiff describes the surface destruction doctrine as a common sense concept. She

asserts that it is not reasonable to assume or believe that a surface owner of land who

acquired the surface for grazing or agriculture would consent to a reservation of a material

or substance that obviously exists on and beneath the surface knowing that the surface could

be destroyed if the mineral owner mined the material or substance. Plaintiff further asserts

and points to photographs that she argues support the fact that the rock covered thirty to forty

percent of the surface of Section 16. Mineable rock also existed below the surface. Thus,

Plaintiff argues, if a reasonably objective rancher such as Shelton, who intended to use the

land for grazing, were to understand that all of the rock, including the subsurface rock,

constituted “minerals” that could be removed by the State in a manner that would destroy

the entire surface, that rancher would not have purchased the land in the first place, since it

“would nullify the grant by destroying the agricultural usefulness of the land.”

{27} This surface destruction doctrine appears in one form or another in several cases cited

by Plaintiff.2

 See Waring v. Foden, [1932] 1 Ch. 276, 86 A.L.R. 969, 979 (Eng.) (stating that

“the word ‘minerals’ when found in a reservation out of a grant of land means substances

exceptional in use, in value[,] and in character . . . and does not mean the ordinary soil . . .

which if reserved would practically swallow up the grant”); see also Downstate Stone, 712

F.2d at 1218 (stating that “it [is] unreasonable to assume that a party intended to reserve the

surface, and at the same time convey to the mineral owner the limestone on the surface with

the right to remove it, thereby destroying all that he had reserved”); Florman v. MEBCO Ltd.

P’ship, 207 S.W.3d 593, 600, 601 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006) (holding that limestone was not a

mineral at the time of the original transaction in 1873 as well as at the time of the decision,
14

states that “[i]n this country it is a part of the soil, and a conveyance that reserves the

limestone with the right to remove it would reserve practically everything and grant

nothing” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 

{28} Plaintiff does not suggest that the surface destruction doctrine be applied without

regard to intent; instead, according to Plaintiff, it can be viewed as a doctrine “designed to

facilitate the [intent] inquiry mandated in Bogle Farms” and as a “proxy for determining

what the parties must have reasonably intended.” Plaintiff argues based on her cited case

law that application of the doctrine is triggered because (1) the entire surface area conveyed

need not be covered with the material in question before the doctrine applies; (2) the doctrine

may apply in circumstances where the reservation is included within a patent or other

instrument of conveyance issued by a state governmental entity; and (3) widespread

outcropping of the material covering thirty to forty percent of the land together with the same

rock found below the surface made it apparent that mining the rock would destroy the

surface and make the surface unsuitable for grazing. Plaintiff shows that the rock is part of

a fifteen- to twenty-mile-wide geologic formation with rock outcrops that stretches from the

Sangre de Cristo Mountains on the north into Texas and Mexico on the south and that “if the

rock being removed is ‘mineral,’ the entire formation would have to be considered ‘mineral’

since the rock being removed has the same characteristics as the other rock in the

formation[.]”

{29} Plaintiff also urges adoption and application of the surface destruction doctrine

because, had the appraiser believed the rock was a mineral, he would have reflected that in

his appraisal and would have accounted for reduced value because of the risk of surface

destruction. Thus, Plaintiff argues, viewing intent objectively, based on the undisputed

circumstances, a reasonable person in Shelton’s position would not have intended to

purchase Section 16 without ownership of the rock, adding that “a reasonable person in . . .

Shelton’s position would not have paid valuable consideration for Section 16 during the

Great Depression had he known that [the] SLO could destroy the surface.”

{30} Plaintiff points out that Bogle Farms never considered the application of the surface

destruction doctrine and because most of the parties to the original contract were before the

court and subject to cross-examination, it was not necessary for the court to consider the

doctrine. Plaintiff also argues that, in Bogle Farms, the patentee’s application specifically

referred to sand and gravel as being included as a mineral, thus showing the purchaser’s

intent that sand and gravel could be a mineral and making the result in that case

foreordained. See Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 3. Plaintiff further distinguishes Bogle

Farms because “live persons who participated in the transactions in question were available

to testify concerning their intent[.]” Plaintiff complains that the district court in the present

case erroneously went beyond what Bogle Farms would allow by considering and relying

on information developed long after the original transaction—information deemed by courts

in similar cases not to be material. In addition, Plaintiff contends the Ferguson Act did not

intend to convey minerals, in that the Act provided that only non-mineral lands were to be

conveyed, and that the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is the lands conveyed
15

were not deemed to contain minerals, “a critical conclusion” according to Plaintiff “since the

materials now claimed to be minerals were plainly visible.”

{31} Relating specifically to the transactional documents, which are (1) the application

(Pl. Ex. 1), (2) the appraisal (Pl. Ex. 2), (3) the purchase contract (Pl. Ex. 3), and (4) the

patent (Pl. Ex. 4), Plaintiff not only contends that these documents provide “further support

for application of the surface destruction doctrine[,]” Plaintiff also argues that the documents

are at variance with the district court’s ruling, in that “the fact that there is no evidence the

parties considered whether the rock visible on Section 16 was a mineral disclosed a binding

intention not to reserve it.” Plaintiff states that the appraisal is the more important of the

four transactional documents, in that, although the rock was visible, “the state-approved

appraiser did not classify that rock as a mineral.” Because the SLO’s appraisal form used

by the appraiser called for the appraiser to list all minerals, Plaintiff argues, the rock would

have been listed had it been regarded as a mineral. Further, Plaintiff argues that because no

value was independently assigned to the rock, and because the Enabling Act requires all

sales of state lands to be appraised at their “true value,” if the rock had been regarded as a

mineral, there would have been a deduction from the “true value” of the rock given that the

removal of the rock would have rendered the land useless for the contemplated purpose of

grazing. As for Shelton’s application, Plaintiff points out that Shelton “recited that there was

nothing he regarded as a mineral on the land.” Plaintiff further shows that the patent stated

that Shelton was “to have and to hold the said premises . . . forever[,]” a concept inconsistent

with any notion that material was a mineral under the mineral reservation clause where the

mineral could be removed only by destroying the surface.

{32} Further, Plaintiff argues that Rickelton governs the present case. Plaintiff contends

that Rickelton addressed the precise question of “whether sand and gravel was a reserved

‘mineral’ within [the] SLO’s patent reservation” and, according to Plaintiff, “reached the

opposite conclusion because, unlike [in] Burris, there was nothing in the transactional

documents in the record in that case where the patentee acknowledged that sand and gravel

was a mineral.” Plaintiff concludes that because the transactional documents in the present

case contained no acknowledgment by Shelton that either rock, ballast, crushed stone, or

industrial materials was a mineral, under Rickelton, rock was not a mineral within the

common and ordinary meaning of that term in a mineral reservation and that “the undefined

term ‘minerals’ does not include rock.”

{33} Because Plaintiff strongly relies on Rickelton, we pause here to discuss Rickelton’s

status in New Mexico law. Plaintiff footnotes that although Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051,

¶¶ 15-16, “took the opportunity to overrule, or recognize overruling, . . . several New

Mexico decisions, it left Rickelton [intact] despite discussing it extensively.” We doubt that

Rickelton is viable. The Court relied on and felt controlled by Trujillo, a case that, Rickelton

explained, held that sand and gravel was not intended to come within the general reservation

clause because it was a material that “had no rare or exceptional character and possessed

peculiar property giving it special value.” Rickelton, 91 N.M. at 480-81, 576 P.2d at 286-87.

Plaintiff fails to mention that Trujillo was overruled by Champlin Petroleum, 103 N.M. at
16

410, 708 P.2d at 322, a point expressly made in Bogle Farms. See Bogle Farms, 1996-

NMSC-051, ¶ 12. Both Trujillo and Champlin Petroleum involved conveyances pursuant

to the Federal Stock-Raising Homestead Act. Champlin Petroleum, 103 N.M. at 408-10,

708 P.2d at 320-22; Trujillo, 82 N.M. at 695-97, 487 P.2d at 123-25. Bogle Farms stated:

This Court specifically addressed whether the term “mineral” as used

in a reservation included sand and gravel for the first time in [Trujillo,

overruled by Champlin Petroleum]. Basing our holding on a review of the

Federal Stock-Raising Homestead Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 291-302 (1982)

(repealed in part in 1976), we concluded that the federal government did not

intend to include sand and gravel within the term “mineral” as it was used in

a federal patent. Trujillo, 82 N.M. at 696-97, 487 P.2d at 124-25. The

United States Supreme Court indirectly overruled this conclusion in Watt v.

Western Nuclear, Inc., 462 U.S. 36, 55, 103 S. Ct. 2218, 2229, 76 L.Ed.2d

400 (1983) (determining that gravel was included within the scope of the

mineral reservation contained in a federal patent issued under the StockRaising Homestead Act). Relying on Watt, this Court expressly overruled

Trujillo in Champlin Petroleum Co., wherein we determined that caliche was

“a mineral similar to sand, gravel, clay, and limestone,” Champlin Petroleum

Co., 103 N.M. at 409, 708 P.2d at 321, and was therefore included within the

general mineral reservation of a federal patent, id. at 410, 708 P.2d at 322.

Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 12. Bogle Farms’ discussion of Rickelton and Rickelton’s

reliance on Trujillo leave Rickelton’s value as controlling or even reliable authority in

considerable doubt. Furthermore, Rickelton is not helpful to Plaintiff because the district

court’s determinations made in that case, which were affirmed, were fact-specific and not

necessarily ones that would make Rickelton controlling precedent. See 91 N.M. at 481, 576

P.2d at 287.

{34} Insofar as Plaintiff attacks evidence and certain of the district court’s findings as

irrelevant or insubstantial, thereby casting doubt on the validity of the district court’s

determination relating to intent, we hold that the attacks, even assuming some are

meritorious, have no effect on our decision in this case. We do not base our determinations

on the findings Plaintiff challenges as irrelevant or insubstantial based on information that

came into existence after the 1947 patent. We ignore Plaintiff’s quarrel with findings as to

which Plaintiff merely sets out evidence as to the original parties’ intent arguably favorable

to Plaintiff’s position.

The Dispositive Issues of Intent and the Surface Destruction Doctrine

{35} Bogle Farms requires us to determine the intent of the parties to the original sale

transaction between the Commissioner and the purchaser of state trust land. 1996-NMSC051, ¶ 14. The parties’ intent in the present case can be determined only objectively from

the original sale-related documents and surrounding circumstances. Plaintiff does not
17

contend that findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff’s primary

complaint is that the district court erred in not applying the surface destruction doctrine and

determining, based on the doctrine, that the parties did not intend the mineral reservation to

include the rock. 

{36} Plaintiff also asserts that certain of the findings of fact on which the district court

relied were not sufficient to support a determination favoring the Commissioner on the

question “whether the parties to the original contract intended that the State reserve sand and

gravel[,]” quoting from Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 35 (emphasis added by Plaintiff).

Plaintiff’s limited attack on certain conclusions of law as “based upon insubstantial

evidence” is phrased as follows: “[T]he trial court relied upon information developed long

after the original parties entered into the contracts at issue,” and also “relied upon other

information generally deemed by the courts in similar cases to be immaterial[.]” We dispose

of this limited point easily. None of the findings of fact to which Plaintiff refers relating to

circumstances after issuance of the patent are findings on which we rely to affirm the district

court’s conclusions of law and ultimate decision. The circumstances set out in the court’s

findings of fact that occurred after the patent was issued, although noteworthy, were not

necessary for a determination as to the intent of the parties. See Tome Land & Improvement

Co. v. Silva, 86 N.M. 87, 90, 519 P.2d 1024, 1027 (1973) (holding that a finding, even if

erroneous, was clearly immaterial and irrelevant and could be ignored as surplusage with the

remaining findings and conclusions supporting the judgment); see also Quarles v. Arcega,

114 N.M. 502, 509, 841 P.2d 550, 557 (Ct. App. 1992) (“Even if a finding of fact or

conclusion is erroneous, if it is unnecessary to the court’s decision, the mistake is not a basis

for reversal.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); United Veterans Org. v. N.M.

Prop. Appraisal Dep’t, 84 N.M. 114, 118, 500 P.2d 199, 203 (Ct. App. 1972) (“The making

of unnecessary and superfluous findings of fact or the presence of error in findings of fact

on immaterial, irrelevant, or purely collateral issues is harmless and non-reversible error if

the judgment is otherwise sufficiently supported.”). The circumstances set out in the court’s

findings of fact relating to circumstances that pre-date the issuance of the patent are material.

{37} The court’s several ultimate findings of fact that support a determination as to intent

and its conclusions of law regarding intent are based on reasonable inferences from

evidence, including findings regarding the sale-related documents and the surrounding

circumstances, from which the court could determine, objectively, that the parties intended

that the mineral reservation included the rock. The court’s numerous findings of fact and

conclusions of law reflect a rational and reasonable process of distilling of the court’s

findings of fact into the court’s conclusions of law to arrive at Bogle Farms’ required-intent

element. We note, in particular, the court’s conclusions of law stating:

14. If the parties, at the time Patent No. 1906 was issued, had the

same understanding of the mineral reservation, then that shared meaning

controls. 
18

15. If the parties had a different understanding of the mineral

reservation in Patent No. 1906 at the time the patent was issued, then the

[c]ourt as fact-finder is required to give the meaning that it finds to be most

reasonable, taking into consideration all the circumstances, including the

intentions of the parties, the words that the parties used, the purposes the

parties sought to achieve, custom in the trade, the parties’ course of dealing,

the parties’ course of performance, whether a party, at the time the contract

was entered into, knew or should have known that the other party interpreted

the term[s] differently.

These conclusions of law were derived in part from findings (1) that, based on several

factors, “the parties intended that crushed stone, an industrial mineral, was to be considered

a mineral in the 1930 Shelton contract to purchase and one of those ‘minerals of whatsoever

kind’ included in the State’s mineral reservation in Patent No. 1906[,]” and (2) that 

[e]ven if the parties disagreed as to the meaning of the term ‘mineral’ in the

1930 Shelton contract to purchase or the phrase ‘minerals of whatsoever

kind’ in the 1947 patent, or if the parties’ intentions could not be determined,

it is most reasonable that the term and phrase include the industrial mineral

known as crushed stone, based on all surrounding circumstances.

{38} The foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law as to intent followed the

district court’s ruling that the mineral reservation was ambiguous. The parties do not

disagree with that ruling, and we agree with the district court that the mineral reservation

was ambiguous. Except for minerals expressly mentioned, the mineral reservation did not

indicate what material or substance was intended to constitute a mineral within the meaning

of the mineral reservation. Although, over the years in New Mexico, what constitutes a

mineral under a mineral reservation in patents, deeds, custom, and case law has become clear

as to many, if not most, materials and substances, some materials and substances appear to

have escaped a settled identification. Common or metamorphic rock presently rests among

the unsettled. On appeal, Plaintiff resolves the ambiguity in meaning by application of the

surface destruction doctrine as the overriding evidence of intent. The Commissioner rejects

any application of the surface destruction doctrine and resolves the ambiguity in meaning

based on the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

{39} The district court, of course, was required under Bogle Farms to resolve factually the

ambiguity as to whether the rock came within the mineral reservation by ascertaining the

intent of the parties. UJI 13-804 NMRA requires the district court to determine the

intentions of parties to a contract “by examining their language and conduct, the objectives

they sought to accomplish, and the surrounding circumstances.” UJI 13-825 NMRA,

relating to ambiguity in a contract term, tells us that “[w]here . . . the parties at the time the

contract was made had different meanings in mind[,]” the fact-finder is to “give that meaning

which [it] find[s] to be most reasonable, taking into consideration all the circumstances[.]”

The district court was obviously guided by UJI 13-825. 
19

{40} As we have indicated earlier in this opinion, the district court determined that the

parties intended the rock to be included in the mineral reservation, but also that if there was

disagreement in the meaning, the most reasonable meaning was that the rock was intended

to be included in the mineral reservation based on all surrounding circumstances. These

determinations were made based, among other findings of fact, on the findings set out earlier

in this opinion relating to the language in the contract and the patent; the Sheltons’ intent and

what they sought to achieve; what the status of commercial development of rock as crushed

stone and as a mineral was in the United States; what the State intended in reserving

minerals; and what the Commissioner, in regard to crushed stone, considered as an industrial

mineral based on the custom in the mineral trade markets. Evidence in the record supports

these findings.

{41} Also significant to the district court, as indicated in the court’s findings, was the

involvement of state trust lands and what follows from that. New Mexico state trust lands

have purposefully been classified as mineral lands since 1919. SLO regulations in effect at

the time of the original sale transaction purposefully required that minerals be reserved in

the sale of state trust lands. The 1947 patent reserved to the State “all minerals of

whatsoever kind[.]” At all material times, the rock had significant commercial value if it

were mined, crushed, and marketed for use as railroad ballast and other uses, which could

produce revenue to the State as intended by the mineral reservation. “The State’s intention

in reserving all minerals of whatsoever kind when it issued Patent No. 1906 for land that was

apparently not mineral-bearing was to maximize the State’s opportunities for royalties to be

derived from any and all minerals that might later be discovered on Section 16.”

{42} Discussions in two New Mexico Supreme Court decisions in print between 1930 and

1947 are pertinent in looking at surrounding circumstances. The 1925 decision in Otto

related to the Enabling Act, to the 1919 SLO regulation, and to a sale of state trust lands.

Otto, 31 N.M. at 122-25, 130-31, 241 P. at 1028-29, 1031-32. In Otto, the Court stated:

[I]t cannot be supposed that the Legislature of New Mexico, after taking the

precaution to provide in leases for reservations of minerals, oil, gas, stone,

shale, salt, timber, and all other natural products of the land to be dealt with

separately by the commissioner, intended that, when he went to sell grazing

land or agricultural land, he would be powerless to reserve to the [S]tate and

its institutions the great wealth which might flow from a future discovery of

minerals in the land, merely because the circumstances had not permitted of

his having made an adequate exploration in order to enable him to fully

determine the exact character of the land.

Id. at 140, 241 P.2d at 1035. In relation to the disposition of lands owned by the State, the

Court in Otto agreed with “the proposition that, until patent issues, legal title remains in the

government and subject to investigation and determination.” Id. at 136, 241 P. at 1034.

Although the context in which the foregoing statements were made is not that in the present

case, the Otto case and the statements in it were available for the parties’ consumption up
20

to the date of the issuance of the patent. Also in existence during the critical period was the

1940 decision in Board of County Commissioners v. Good, 44 N.M. 495, 498, 105 P.2d 470,

472 (1940), involving a suit filed by a board of county commissioners to condemn lands to

secure rock, sand, gravel, and caliche for public highway construction, addressing the actual

value of the materials taken and stating that caliche rock was, “in the ordinary acceptation,

a mineral simply, as is also sand [and] gravel[.]” The Court in Good stated: “‘Mineral,’ in

ordinary and common meaning, is a comprehensive term, including every description of

stone and rock deposit, whether containing metallic or non-metallic substances.” Id. The

Court in Good permitted a valuation of the rock separate from the land itself. Id. at 499, 105

P.2d at 472. 

{43} Particular discussions in Bogle Farms are helpful in reaching a result in the present

case. Although set in the context of our Supreme Court’s discussion in Bogle Farms of

whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, we read Bogle Farms to establish a

general principle that New Mexico’s state trust lands have a status of “great public

importance” and that there exists “a strong public interest in the protection of state land and

its products,” a status and interest that we cannot ignore. Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051,

¶¶ 23, 26; cf. Otto, 31 N.M. at 126, 241 P. at 1030 (indicating that the case was “of great

importance, not only to the litigant who seeks protection of the right he claims, but also it

is of great public interest, because there is involved the policy and interest of the [S]tate as

a trustee with respect to its school fund”). Further, also in the collateral estoppel context,

Bogle Farms states that title to state trust lands is not to be conveyed by implication, a

holding made by the Court in response to Roe’s rule of property that, if sand and gravel were

not specifically reserved, title to those minerals passed to the purchaser. Bogle Farms, 1996-

NMSC-051, ¶ 34; Roe, 103 N.M. at 521, 710 P.2d at 88. We view the foregoing statements

in Bogle Farms as intended by our Supreme Court to apply beyond the confines of its

collateral estoppel analyses.

{44} Turning to Plaintiff’s main argument, which is that the surface destruction doctrine

necessarily reflects the intent of the parties, in our view the doctrine essentially espouses an

intent to convey minerals by presumption. In our view, the doctrine presumes that the

parties cannot have intended and did not, therefore, intend a conveyance of surface rights

without rights to the rock. And it mirrors the Roe property rule, which Bogle Farms rejected

as essentially establishing a presumption of a conveyance of minerals where the intent of the

parties was not manifest. Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 34. We will not import the

doctrine into the intent analysis. Moreover, we cannot accept the view, if intended by

Plaintiff, that the doctrine itself is simply evidence to be weighed against all of the

surrounding circumstances in the process of inferring intent. Over the years, there may in

fact have been innumerable now-deceased purchasers of state trust lands who could well

have subjectively intended to purchase land for grazing purposes understanding that the

surface and sub-surface might be subject to mineral exploitation by the State. We are not

convinced that even a preponderance of such purchasers would not have purchased their

lands for grazing had they been specifically aware that some surface material was included

in a mineral reservation. Further, and significantly, none of the surface destruction doctrine
3

 Private Grantor: Downstate Stone, 712 F.2d 1215; W.S. Newell, Inc. v. Randall,

373 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. 1979); Harper v. Talladega Cnty., 185 So. 2d 388 (Ala. 1966);

Bambauer v. Menjoulet, 29 Cal. Rptr. 874 (Ct. App. 1963); Farrell v. Sayre, 270 P.2d 190

(Colo. 1954) (en banc); Kinney, 128 P.3d 297; Florman, 207 S.W.3d 593; Resler, 139

N.W.2d 379; Farm Credit Bank of Tex. v. Colley, 849 S.W.2d 825 (Tex. App. 1993); Atwood

v. Rodman, 355 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962). United States as Grantor: Hess, 348

F.3d 1237; Poverty Flats Land & Cattle Co. v. United States, 788 F.2d 676 (10th Cir. 1986).

21

cases on which Plaintiff relies involves New Mexico state trust lands or lands similar to our

trust lands—instead, they involve purely private land transactions or conveyances by the

United States of lands dissimilar to New Mexico’s state trust lands.3

{45} We are aware of Plaintiff’s and Amicus Curiae New Mexico Farm and Livestock

Bureau’s arguments that substantial farm and ranch land will be at risk if the district court

is affirmed. Plaintiff states that, although this case involves only a single section of land, “its

implications are far more significant” and “could have grave consequences[,]” in that “the

practical effect of the decision below would be that the [Commissioner and the SLO] will

have the right to destroy and render useless for agricultural and grazing purposes any portion

of the millions of acres it has sold to farmers and ranchers on the mere showing that the hard

rock on their lands, which is pervasive throughout the State, has some current economic

value.” We are not insensitive to these concerns. However, we do not feel a freedom to

stray from the required Bogle Farms’ intent-of-the-parties method of ascertaining the

meaning of the mineral reservation. And we cannot ignore the over-arching principles and

policies Bogle Farms enunciates in regard to conveyance of state trust lands. Nor do we feel

free to ignore Bogle Farms’ apparent rejection of a rule or doctrine that creates a

presumption or necessary implication of intent to convey minerals that in effect overrides

or diminishes the significance of surrounding circumstances that indicate an intent to include

rock within the mineral reservation. We leave it up to our Supreme Court to consider

whether Bogle Farms’ clear rule requiring a determination of the intent of the parties to the

original sale transaction can permit application of the surface destruction doctrine.

{46} Further, Plaintiff’s and Amicus Curiae’s concerns are subject to some degree of

dilution in that Plaintiff has not pointed to any specific evidence showing a likely and

substantial risk of future harm to purchasers of state trust lands based on surface destruction.

Nor did Plaintiff show that she would be harmed based on destruction of the surface. We

think it noteworthy that state law requires the Commissioner to obtain from lessees, such as

Mainline, a bond to secure payment to the surface owner for damage to livestock range,

water, crops, or tangible improvements that may occur as a result of the mineral lessee’s

activities. NMSA 1978, §§ 19-10-26 (1979), 19-10-27 (1925); see Tidewater Associated Oil

Co. v. Shipp, 59 N.M. 37, 41, 278 P.2d 571, 574 (1954) (discussing the surface owner

protection provisions of 1919 and 1925 laws and holding that a mineral lessee is similarly

obligated to the surface lessee for damages to grass, livestock, or crops). It is also

noteworthy that, in obtaining a zoning change for construction of its quarry, Mainline
4

The transaction documents consist of: (1) Mr. Shelton’s August 5, 1930 application

to purchase Section 16 from the State; (2) the August 5, 1930 appraisal of Section 16; (3) the

contract dated November 21, 1930, (which was signed on January 22, 1931) between Mr.

Shelton and Land Commissioner James F. Hinkle setting forth the terms of the sale of

Section 16 from the State to Mr. Shelton; and (4) the August 4, 1947 patent, signed by Land

22

provided a reclamation plan in which it represented that, “[w]hen the quarry is completed[,]

the land will be suitable for grazing and will form a basin for collecting storm water for

livestock watering[.]” The Rule 5 Mining Lease issued to Mainline states, “[l]essee has

separately contracted with the owner of the surface estate of the lands described herein,

which contractual arrangement . . . includes certain responsibilities relating to operations,

reclamation, surface protection[,] and damages[.]” And the district court made an

unchallenged finding that “[a]fter removal of the rock that can be removed in a commercially

viable manner, the site can be reclaimed in such a manner as to allow the pre-existing

grazing use without substantial impairment.”

{47} We hold that the district court did not err in determining, under Bogle Farms’

required analysis of the intent of the parties of the original sale transaction, that based on the

sale transaction documentation, including the patent, and also based on all of the surrounding

circumstances, the intent of the conveyance transaction was that the rock was included in the

reservation of “all minerals of whatsoever kind” in the patent.

CONCLUSION

{48} We affirm the district court’s determination that the rock in question was a mineral

within the mineral reservation in the 1947 patent relating to Section 16.

{49} IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________

JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

I CONCUR:

______________________________________

CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge (dissenting).

VIGIL, Judge (dissenting).

{50} The extent of the mineral reservation set forth in the transaction documents is

ambiguous.4

 Thus, the question before the district court was whether the original parties to
Commissioner John E. Miles, conveying Section 16 to Mrs. Shelton.

5

Roe, 103 N.M. at 521, 710 P.2d at 88.

6

Burris, 88 N.M. at 147, 538 P.2d at 419.

7

Rickelton, 91 N.M. at 481, 576 P.2d at 287.

23

the sale intended the surface and subsurface metamorphic rock in Section 16 to be included

in the mineral reservation. The district court ruled, and the majority agrees, that the mineral

reservation includes the rock. In my view, the district court erred in two respects: (1) it

failed to take into consideration the surface destruction doctrine as bearing on the parties’

intent at the time the contract for the purchase of Section 16 was made; and (2) it considered

irrelevant evidence and without this evidence, its conclusion that the parties intended to

include the rock in the mineral reservation is not supported by substantial evidence. Since

the majority disagrees, I dissent.

THE HOLDING OF BOGLE FARMS

{51} Bogle Farms overruled the holding in Roe5 that because a purchase contract and

patent did not specifically reserve sand and gravel in a mineral reservation, title to the sand

and gravel passed to the purchaser along with the surface estate. Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC051, ¶ 34. Bogle Farms reiterated the principle laid down in Burris,

6

 restated in Rickelton,

7

that in determining whether the general term “mineral” includes a specific substance is

resolved on a case-by-case basis. Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 21. “The case-by-case

rule adopted in Burris is based on the principle that in contract cases the role of the court is

to give effect to the intention of the contracting parties. The role of the court is to determine

whether the parties intended to include [the substance] within the term ‘mineral.’” Bogle

Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 22. A case-by-case analysis is required “because the intent of

parties to one contract may not be the same as the intent of parties to another contract.” Id.

Given that “[t]he polestar of deed construction is the parties’ intent,” id. ¶ 34, Bogle Farms

unambiguously mandates:

[1.] [A]nyone purchasing land under a purchase contract or a

patent with a specific reservation would be bound by the terms of that

reservation.

[2.] If there is not a specific reservation, the trial court must look

to evidence outside the face of the contract to determine the meaning

intended for the term “mineral” when that term has been shown under the

circumstances to be ambiguous.

[3.] In those cases involving successors in interest to original

purchasers, [where the purchase was not made in reliance on Roe], . . . the
24

issue is whether the parties to the original contract intended that the State

reserve [the substance in question].

Id. ¶ 35.

{52} In this case, none of the transaction documents contain a specific reservation of the

surface and subsurface metamorphic rock in Section 16. Further, there is no dispute that the

mineral reservation in the transaction documents is ambiguous. Thus, Bogle Farms required

the district court to determine whether Mr. Shelton and Commissioner Hinkle, as the parties

to the original contract, intended the State to reserve the surface and subsurface metamorphic

rock in Section 16. With the foregoing principles and requirements in mind, I now turn to

each specific disagreement I have with the majority.

REJECTION OF THE SURFACE DESTRUCTION DOCTRINE

{53} Mr. Shelton and Commissioner Hinkle, the parties to the original sale of Section 16,

are deceased. Thus, the majority concludes, their intent “can be determined only objectively

from the original sale-related documents and surrounding circumstances.” Majority Opinion

¶ 35. The “surrounding circumstances” clearly include the condition of the land at the time

of the sale. Since the original parties to the contract are deceased, and the transaction

documents are ambiguous, the evidence most probative of their intent is the condition of the

land at the time of the sale. 

{54} The surface destruction doctrine requires the fact finder to engage in a critical

analysis of the land at the time of the sale. I refer to the surface destruction doctrine to mean,

as quoted by the majority in Paragraph 25, a doctrine “which holds that, in the absence of

clear contrary intent, where materials alleged to be ‘minerals’ are plainly visible on the

surface, and where the surface would have to be destroyed in order to ‘mine’ them, the

parties could not have intended those materials to be ‘minerals’ because, if they were, the

mineral reservation would swallow up the grant and render it worthless.” Plaintiff asked the

district court to use the doctrine in assessing the intent of the parties, but the district court

refused. The majority concludes this was not error, Majority Opinion ¶ 44, and I disagree.

{55} This area of New Mexico is part of what is called the Rocky Mountains for very good

obvious reason. The district court briefly noted the land’s physical condition in its findings,

noting that prior to 1930, Section 16 was owned in fee by the State, and that “Section 16 is

located in that part of Torrance County known as ‘Perdenal Hills’ and is largely composed

of Pre-Cambrian metamorphic rock.” (Emphasis added.) This finding is supported by

photographs showing rocks on the surface all over Section 16. To illustrate, two

photographs introduced into evidence are attached to this dissent. The majority also notes

that Plaintiff showed that the rock is part of a fifteen- to twenty-mile-wide geologic

formation with rock outcrops that stretches from the Sangre de Cristo Mountains on the

north into Texas and Mexico on the south. Majority Opinion ¶ 28. The district court

findings and Plaintiff’s evidence establish that the rocks in Section 16 were ubiquitous and
25

obvious in 1930. Nevertheless, the district court made a finding that “[t]he fact that surface

rock was visible on Section 16 was not the same as a determination that such rock was or

was not a mineral under the 1930 Shelton contract to purchase or under Patent No. 1906’s

mineral reservation.” 

{56} The majority has discussed the appraisal as if the appraiser was representing Mr.

Shelton. Majority Opinion ¶ 6. The evidence suggests otherwise. In the application to

purchase Section 16, Mr. Shelton recites the amount he offers to pay for the land and he also

agrees to pay an additional amount of money “to defray the expense of appraisement and

advertising as per the rules of the State Land Office, such amount to be returned to me in the

event I am not the successful bidder.” The appraisal is based on the personal knowledge of

the appraiser and he does not classify the rock as a mineral, notwithstanding its obvious and

abundant presence on Section 16. In the 1930 contract to buy Section 16, Mr. Shelton

agreed to pay the agreed upon price for the land and he also paid an additional amount, “the

same being the payments required for the advertisement and appraisement of said land[.]”

Thus, these documents suggest on their face that the State hired the appraiser, and Mr.

Shelton simply reimbursed the State for the expense of the appraisal. It is therefore a fair

inference that the appraiser represented to his principal, the State, that notwithstanding the

presence and abundance of the rocks, there were no minerals on Section 16. 

{57} The majority’s reasons for refusing to adopt the surface destruction doctrine to

facilitate the intent inquiry mandated by Bogle Farms are unconvincing. Majority Opinion

¶¶ 44-46. The majority states that Plaintiff urges its adoption as a means of conveying

minerals by implication or by presumption in violation of Bogle Farms. Majority Opinion

¶¶ 19, 44. I disagree. Bogle Farms did not consider the surface destruction doctrine, and

the statement in Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 34, that state trust lands should not be

conveyed by implication is not a rejection of the surface destruction doctrine. Rather, the

statement sets forth an additional reason for overruling Roe’s conclusion that if a substance

is not specifically included in a mineral reservation, it is excluded from the mineral

reservation. Instead, the actual intent of the parties governs, and the Bogle Farms statement

does not preclude utilizing an evidentiary aid such as the surface destruction doctrine to

construe the intent of the original parties to the transaction. In addition, the majority in

wholesale fashion rejects the significant and substantial body of cases which recognize and

apply the surface destruction doctrine on the basis that “they involve purely private land

transactions or conveyances by the United States of lands dissimilar to New Mexico’s trust

lands.” Majority Opinion ¶ 44. Noticeably absent in the wholesale rejection of these cases

is any indication that the doctrine is not a valuable and valid aid in construing intent. 

{58} I would adopt the surface destruction doctrine as an evidentiary tool to facilitate the

intent inquiry required by Bogle Farms. The intent of the original parties is to be construed

from the perspective of the interest the buyer desires to purchase, and the interest the seller

desires to sell. Mr. Shelton’s application to purchase Section 16 states he intends to use

Section 16 to “graze sheep or raise cattle”; the appraisal states that Section 16 is best adapted

for “grazing”; and the contract, which is the only document signed by both Mr. Shelton and
26

Commissioner Hinkle, states that Section 16 “is being purchased for the purpose of grazing

and agriculture only[.]” Thus, I would remand this case to the district court to utilize the

surface destruction doctrine to determine whether removal of the surface and subsurface

metamorphic rock unreasonably interferes with what use the original parties intended for

Section 16, namely for grazing and agricultural purposes. If such a burden results, this is

persuasive evidence that Mr. Shelton and Commissioner Hinkle did not intend the State to

reserve the rock in the general mineral reservation. 

CONSIDERATION OF IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE

{59} The district court findings of fact relating to whether Mr. Shelton and Commissioner

Hinkle intended to include the rock in the general mineral reservation are, for the most part,

all facts which occurred after 1930. Many of them are set forth verbatim in the majority

opinion in Paragraphs 22-24. Without these facts, there is no basis for concluding that Mr.

Shelton and Commissioner Hinkle intended to include the rock in the general mineral

reservation. For the following reasons, I submit that the district court erred in considering

these facts. Furthermore, they do not support the district court’s findings of intent, because

they are irrelevant. 

{60} Commissioner Hinkle agreed to sell Section 16 to Mr. Shelton, and they entered into

a contract, dated November 21, 1930. Under the contract, Commissioner Hinkle agreed to

convey a fee simple interest in Section 16 to Mr. Shelton upon payment of the purchase price

in full subject to the following reservations and conditions:

[T]hat this land is being purchased for the purpose of grazing and agriculture

only; that while the land herein contracted for is believed to be essentially

non-mineral land, should mineral be discovered therein it is expressly

understood and agreed that this contract is based upon the express condition

that the minerals therein shall be and are reserved to the fund or institution

to which the land belongs, together with right of way to the Commissioner,

or any one acting under his authority, at any and all times to enter upon said

land and mine and remove the minerals therefrom without let or hindrance.

The land was paid for, and on behalf of the State, Commissioner Miles issued a patent to Mr.

Shelton’s widow on August 19, 1947. The patent conveys a fee simple estate to Section 16,

but reserves to the State:

all minerals of whatsoever kind, including oil and gas, in the lands so

granted, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine,

produce and remove the same, and perform any and all acts necessary in

connection therewith, upon compliance with the conditions and subject to the

limitations of the laws of the State of New Mexico[.]
27

{61} As set forth in this dissent, there are two general mineral reservations in this case:

the mineral reservation in the 1930 contract between Commissioner Hinkle and Mr. Shelton,

and the mineral reservation in the 1947 patent issued to Mr. Shelton’s widow by

Commissioner Miles. As quoted above, the 1930 contract first states that the land contracted

for “is believed to be essentially non-mineral.” With this preface, the contract then provides,

“should mineral be discovered” on Section 16, such minerals “are reserved.” On the other

hand, the 1947 patent in the broadest language states that “all minerals of whatsoever kind”

are reserved. The documents are not only separated by almost seventeen years, they are

signed by different commissioners. The differences between the two reservation clauses are

material, and the majority does not determine which mineral reservation applies. I conclude,

however, that the 1930 general mineral reservation is the one which is applicable. 

{62} The contract between the parties defines what the purchaser (Mr. Shelton) agreed to

buy and what the seller (the State) agreed to sell. The function of the patent is to convey the

legal title which the parties agreed upon, not to change the contract made by the parties. See

Bogle Farms, 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 4 (noting that purchasers buying land from the

Commissioner of Public Lands under installment contracts received patents from the

Commissioner transferring legal title after fulfilling their contractual payment obligations);

Jensen v. State Highway Comm’n, 97 N.M. 630, 631, 642 P.2d 1089, 1090 (1982) (stating

that the provisions of the purchase contract determine whether a substance is reserved to the

State, and if the State desires to reserve a substance, “it may do so by specific reservations

in the purchase contract”); cf. Deaton v. Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-043, ¶ 14, 135 N.M. 423,

89 P.3d 672 (stating that until the Bureau of Land Management issued a patent to the land,

title remained in the United States). Bogle Farms itself was a declaratory judgment brought

by original purchasers and successors in interest to land sold by the Commissioner of Public

Lands under installment contracts. 1996-NMSC-051, ¶ 3. The plaintiffs alleged that the

general mineral reservation of their purchase contracts did not include sand and gravel, and

they sought a declaratory judgment that their patents could not include a specific reservation

of sand and gravel. Id. ¶ 5.

{63} I therefore conclude that the applicable mineral reservation at issue in this case is the

one contained in the 1930 contract between Commissioner Hinkle and Mr. Shelton. The

district court failed to relate the post-1930 findings of fact back to the intent Mr. Shelton and

Commissioner Hinkle had when they signed the 1930 contract. Thus, Finding of Fact No.

69 is not supported by substantial evidence. This finding, which the majority refers to in

Paragraph 37, and relies on in Paragraphs 38-39 in affirming the judgment states:

Based on the parties’ language in their dealings with one another, their

conduct, the objectives they sought to accomplish, and the surrounding

circumstance the parties intended that the crushed stone, an industrial

mineral, was to be considered a mineral in the 1930 Shelton contract to

purchase and one of those “minerals of whatsoever kind” included in the

State’s mineral reservation in Patent No. 1906.
28

Further, assuming the district court could, consistent with Bogle Farms, determine the most

reasonable meaning of the general mineral reservation if Mr. Shelton and Commissioner

Hinkle had different meanings in mind, Finding of Fact No. 72 fails for the same reason.

Finding of Fact No. 72 states:

Even if the parties disagreed as to the meaning of the term “mineral” in the

1930 Shelton contract to purchase or the phrase “minerals of whatsoever

kind’ in the 1947 patent, or if the parties” intentions could not be determined,

it is most reasonable that the term and phrase include the industrial mineral

known as crushed stone, based on all surrounding circumstances.

{64} The majority asserts that it does not rely on any findings made by the district court

after the patent was issued in 1947, and then it fails to specifically identify what those

findings are. Majority Opinion ¶¶ 36-37. I submit that the applicable date for determining

intent is as of the 1930 contract and not the 1947 patent. 

{65} When one considers only those findings which are contemporary with, or precede

1930, they do not support a finding that Mr. Shelton and Commissioner Hinkle intended to

include the rock in the general mineral reservation. For this additional reason, I dissent.

CONCLUSION

{66} I would reverse and remand to the district court to consider the surface destruction

doctrine as evidence of the parties’ intent, and not to consider the post-1930 evidence unless

it is shown to be indicative of the parties’ intent in signing the purchase contract in 1930.

Since the majority disagrees, I dissent.

______________________________________

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

Topic Index for Prather v. Lyons, No. 29,812

AL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE

AL-SE Sufficiency of Evidence

AE APPEAL AND ERROR

AE-AJ Appellate Jurisdiction

AE-HE Harmless Error

AE-PA Preservation of Issues for Appeal

AE-SR Standard of Review 

AE-SB Substantial or Sufficient Evidence

CN CONTRACTS

CN-AM Ambiguous Contracts
29

CN-IT Intent

CN-RE Real Estate Contract

EV EVIDENCE

EV-RC Relevancy, Materiality, and Competency

GV GOVERNMENT

GV-EN Environmental Law

GV-LU Land Use

GV-PL Public Lands

NR NATURAL RESOURCES

NR-MM Mines and Minerals

NR-RO Royalties

PR PROPERTY

PR-AP Appraisal

PR-MD Mineral Deed

PR-MR Mineral Resources

PR-PU Public Lands

PR-QT Quiet Title

PR-RE Real Estate Contract

PR-SD Surface Destruction Doctrine
30
31