Opinion ID: 1141909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE DEED EVIDENCE THE INTENTION OF McII TO KEEP UNTO THEMSELVES AN UNDIVIDED 1/2 MINERAL INTEREST IN FEE SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE FOR YEARS.

Text: Here, the McII heirs and assigns argue persuasively that two (2) other paragraphs in the deed limit the warranty by making it subject to a mineral lease and a seven (7) year timber deed, but that McII made no effort to retain unto themselves reversionary interests in those. Although this language is of help in construing the exception at issue, and although the argument is persuasive, that does not establish the meaning of the exception so clearly that no ambiguity remains. In construing deeds or reservations therein, the instrument is to be considered as a whole, and the intent of the parties should be gathered from its language. Lackey v. Corley, 295 So.2d 762 (Miss. 1974). Where a conveyance is ambiguous, it is to be construed against the grantor. Brashier v. Toney, 514 So.2d 329 (Miss. 1987); Baker v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., 218 So.2d 39 (Miss. 1969). The Chancellor was correct in finding the exception ambiguous and in construing it against the grantor. Judgment in favor of the Kinnebrew heirs and assigns is affirmed.