Opinion ID: 1958207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the Mineral Reservation

Text: As to this issue, we concede that the phrase all mineral rights is inherently ambiguous and the word minerals as defined in its broadest sense, would include anything not animal or vegetable and would even embrace the soil itself. Thus, the Court may examine extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties when making the reservation. Huie Hodge Lumber Co. v. Railroad Lands Co., 151 La. 197, 91 So. 676 (1922). We have taken cognizance of the reasons of both lower courts on this issue and acknowledge, as did the trial court, that the issue is a close one. Nevertheless, we prefer the exhaustive analysis made by the court of appeal concerning the contract negotiations leading to the reservation as determinative of the issue, and adopt that court's analysis of the evidence that the reservation of all mineral rights included the right to explore for and exploit lignite coal, a solid material. At the risk of being redundant we adopt their conclusion on this issue as follows: Mansfield and Continental negotiated about the broadness of the term all mineral rights. Continental wanted to restrict the term to exclude earth, sand and gravel. Mansfield wanted to keep it unrestricted. The digging of earth, sand and gravel certainly was contemplated as being included in the term all mineral rights. Lignite and other solid minerals are not excluded and the digging of lignite must be deemed to have been within the contemplation of the parties. The Continental Group, Inc. v. J. L. Allison, Jr., et al., 379 So.2d 1117 (2nd Cir. 1979), at p. 1130.