Opinion ID: 1711091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the language within the four corners of the 1944 Shows to Knight deed unambiguously reserve one-half (½) of the minerals unto the Shows?

Text: ¶ 8. In cases requiring judicial construction of a deed conveying a mineral interest, the Court seeks to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the parties. The case of Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349, 352-353 (Miss.1990), sets out the following three-tiered process which the Court is to utilize in making such a determination: (1) look solely to the language contained within the four corners of the instrument; (2) if the language within the instrument's four corners is ambiguous, then apply the applicable canons of construction in a discretionary manner; and (3) if the intent of the parties is still unknown, look to extrinsic evidence. Where [the language within the four corners of the instrument] is clear, explicit, harmonious and free from ambiguity, the Court will look solely to the language used in the instrument itself. Miller, 468 So.2d at 867. ¶ 9. As previously mentioned, the language used in the 1944 deed from the Shows to Knight said [I]t is understood by the grantee herein that I have heretofore sold three-fourths (¾) of all mineral interest in, on or under the above described land. This language clearly and explicitly told W.W. Knight that three-fourths (¾) of the minerals were already gone, and by signing and accepting delivery of the deed containing this language, he adopted said language as if his own. At that point, the only logical conclusion he could have reached was that he was receiving only one-fourth (¼) of the minerals. Looking solely at this clear and explicit language, this Court can reach no other determination than that it was the intent of the parties for W.W. Knight to receive one-fourth (¼) of the minerals. Gladys Knight asserts that this statement in the deed is untruthful. Regardless, it is the understanding between the parties as evidenced by the language in the deed, and not the truthfulness of the language in the deed, that is most important in this situation. In other words, in seeking the intent of the parties, Miller speaks of the clarity and explicitness of the terms in an instrument, not their truthfulness. As the intent of the parties is ascertainable by looking solely to the language within the four corners of the 1944 Shows to Knight deed, it is unnecessary to move on to tiers two (2) and three (3) of the Pursue Energy test.