THE ,*~ORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

Mi-. 0;J.S: Ellingson 

Gyeral Manager 

Texas Prison System 

Huntsville, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion Ro. O-3357 

Ri: DOW lessee of vendor under a-~ 

deed reserving minerals have the 

right of ingress and agress'for 

the purpose of exploiting such 

minerals? 

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter-of March 

29, requesting the opinion of this Department. We quote your 

letter In full as follows: 

"Mr; Ray Chapman, Auditor of the Texas Prison 

Bgatem, advises he adliveha to you the ae8a to the 

Blue Ridge State Farmwhich reserves to Mr. Bassett 

Blakely, vendor, the mineral rights. 

"Recently a man by-the name of Richards set up 

a derrick and other equipment for sinking a shaft to 

operate a salt mine on the Edward Drew Survey which 

comprises part of the Blue Ridge State Farm purchased 

from Mr. Bassett Blakelg. 

"Please refer to the deed In your possession and 

advise if Nr. Richards after entering into a lease with 

Mr. Blakelg would have a right to move In on this property 

without consulting the prison system and if your answer Is yes, Would we have a rLght to all damages 

sustained or would the necessary damages for the operation of a salt mine be exempted?" 

We wrote you that the deed to which you refer in your 

letter was not In our posssesslon and requested thatwe be 

furnished with a copy thereof. A copy of this deed was enclosed in your letter of April 18th, receipt of which we acknowledge. 

This deed contal.ns a mineral reservation and we quote 

the following pertinent excerpt: 

"It IS further agreed and understood that the 
Mr. O.J.S. Ellingson, page 2 O-3357 

said Bassett Blakely does not convey by this instrument any of the 011, gas or minerals upon, in 

or under sala land. . . . ..The grantor, his assigns and leasees, shall have the right of ingress 

and egress in the lands herein conveyed for the 

purpose of exploiting the said lands for oil, gas 

and other minerals, but such right shall be exerclsed in such a way as to occasion no unnecessary 

damage, either to the surface of said lands or to 

any growing crops thereon, and all actual damages 

occasioned by the exercise of said rights shall be 

paid to the Prison Commission." 

In view of this express provision in the deed by which 

the prison system acquired title to the land, there can be no 

questlon that the vendor's lessee has the right to enter upon 

the land to exploit the mineral estate, 

Even in the absence of such a stipulation in the deed, 

under the Texas law the owner of the mineral estate is gLven 

the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of exploring 

and developfng. 

230 3-W. 864. 

Donnell v. Otts (Civ. App., Ft. Worth, 1921), 

"The law is well settled in this state that. 

the lessee (under a mineral 1ease))has the right'oi 

possesslon of any part of the surface of the land as 

may be reasonablg,,necessarg for development and exploration, 

Mercer (Civ,'App:, 

United North and South Of1 Co. v. 

Austin, 1926) 286 S,w. 652S 

However, under the provisions of Article 6166g'(Vernon's 

Ann. St.) the Texas Prison Board is given the exclusive management and control of the prison system and all its propertles. 

As we understand your inquiry, the property in question 

constitutes a part of a prison farm, and we realize that there 

might be some conflict between the authority of the Prison 

Board over the land and the rights of the owner of the mineral 

estate to extract the minerals. 

MeLther the prison officials nor the owner of the mineral estate may wantonly disregard the rights of the other upon 

the surface of the land in question: 

"It has been sald that there is an implied contract 

between the owner of the surface estate and the owner 

of the oil and gas that each ~111 exercise his right In 

such a manner asto avoid Injuring the other. 31 Tex. 

Jur. 559. See also Humble 011 & Refining Co, v. Wood 
MR. O.J.S. Ellingson, page 3 0 -3357 

(Corn. App. Sec. B, 1927) 294 S.W. 197. 

The situation as you have outllned it appeals to us as 

one which might be equitably adjusted between the parties through 

consultation. We do not believe that the right of the prison 

officials to require that entry upon the land in question be 

such as ~~111 not interfere with the conduct of the prison farm 

can be questioned. 

Such requirements mst, of course, be reasonable and 

such as will not substantially interfere with the right of the 

owner of the mineral estate to develop such estate. 

Answering the latter portion of your inquiry, we wish to 

point out that the deed provides that "all actual damane 

occasioned by the exercise of the right (to extract the minerals) 

shall be paid to the Prison Commission." 

Trusting that we have sufficiently answered your inquiry, we are 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENWAL OF TRXAS 

.~ 

By s/Peter Maniscalco 

Peter Manlscalco 

Assistant 

PM:AMM:wc 

APPROVRCI WAY 14, 1941 

s/Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTART 

ATTORWEY GRRRRAL 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/GRL Chairman