Court Opinion

ID: 9594540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:31:04.095306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:52.082495
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Retired Justice,
concurring.
In general, I agree with much of that said in the majority opinion, but I cannot accept as proper the basis upon which the result is there reached.
In an admirable effort to set a rule which would "minimize title uncertainty and continued litigation to resolve factual issues,” the majority opinion concludes that the reservation of minerals in this deed “expresses a clear and unambiguous intent by the *1005grantor to reserve all the minerals,” and that gravel is not a mineral under the “ordinary and natural meaning” test.1
However, the majority holding will not accomplish the stated purpose. The “ordinary and natural meaning” test, adopted by the majority opinion, is subject to too many variations and gives little guidance to practicing lawyers for advice to clients concerning the scope of a grant or reservation of minerals — other than gravel — in conveyances made in years past or in conveyances now under consideration. Nor does the test settle the issue as it pertains to gravel itself. The indefinite nature of the test is manifest in the test itself. The majority opinion quotes the test as set forth in Heinatz v. Allen, 147 Tex. 512, 217 S.W.2d 994, 997 (1949):
“In our opinion substances such as sand, gravel and limestone are not minerals within the ordinary and natural meaning of the word unless they are rare and exceptional in character or possess a peculiar property giving them special value
The task of determining the existence of rare character, exceptional character, or peculiar property giving special value, is as difficult as determining the grantor’s intent in using the word “minerals.” The fact that this particular substance — gravel — was purchased by the Highway Department for more than a meager sum would indicate it to be of special value.2
Additionally, if the use of the word “minerals” in a grant, reservation, or exception in a conveyance “expresses a clear and unambiguous intent by the grantor to reserve all the minerals, whatever they may be,” as the majority opinion holds, then, strictly speaking, the conveyance would be of nothing at all — especially in the “ordinary and natural” meaning of the word, since for most people, “minerals” means a substance other than “vegetable” or “animal.” Thus, a conveyance reserving “minerals” would include only that which is other than inert substances, i.e., nothing at all. Obviously such could not be the intent of any of the parties. It exemplifies the ambiguous nature of the word “minerals” when used in a grant, an exception, or reservation in a conveyance.
Although I agree with the majority opinion that there are defects in all of the several approaches or tests used by the courts to determine the meaning of the word “minerals” when used in such context, I believe the least defective, best, and more accurate approach for such purpose is through application of the usual rules of construction and established Wyoming precedent.
In referring to some of the rules of construction, the majority opinion cited Cheyenne Mining and Uranium Company v. Federal Resources Corporation, Wyo., 694 P.2d 65 (1985). This court there said:
“We repeated the basic purpose and general rules of contract interpretation in Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company of Wyoming, Wyo., 612 P.2d 463, 465 (1980):
“ ‘Our basic purpose in construing or interpreting a contract is to determine the intention and understanding of the parties. Fuchs v. Goe, 62 Wyo. 134, 163 P.2d 783 (1945); Shellhart v. Axford, Wyo., 485 P.2d 1031 (1971); Oregon Short Line Railroad Company v. Idaho Stockyards Company, 12 Utah 2d 205, 364 P.2d 826 (1961). If the contract is in writing and the language is clear and unambiguous, the intention is to be secured from the words of the contract. Pilcher v. Hamm, Wyo., 351 P.2d 1041 (1960); Fuchs v. Goe, supra; Hollabaugh v. Kolbet, Wyo., 604 P.2d 1359 (1980); Wyoming Bank and Trust Company v. Waugh, Wyo., *1006606 P.2d 725 (1980). And the contract as a whole should be considered, with each part being read in light of all other parts. Shepard v. Top Hat Land & Cattle Co., Wyo., 560 P.2d 730 (1977); Rossi v. Percifield, Wyo., 527 P.2d 819 (1974); Shellkart v. Axford, supra; Quin Blair Enterprises, Inc. v. Julien Construction Company, Wyo., 597 P.2d 945 (1979). The interpretation and construction is done by the court as a matter of law. Hollabaugh v. Kolbet, supra; Bulis v. Wells, Wyo., 565 P.2d 487 (1977); Shepard v. Top Hat Land & Cattle Co., supra.’
“A more recent case to the same effect is Rouse v. Munroe, Wyo., 658 P.2d 74 (1983).
“In interpreting a conveyance of a mineral interest, the court may augment these general rules by considering pertinent, extrinsic factors. In Dawson v. Meike, Wyo., 508 P.2d 15, 18 (1973), we said:
“ ‘ * * * [W]e find no fault with * * * the authority of Houghton v. Thompson, 57 Wyo. 196, 115 P.2d 654, that to interpret a contract for the conveyance of an interest in oil and gas the court should consider not only the terms of the writing but also the surrounding circumstances, attendant facts showing the relations of the parties, the nature and situation of the subject matter, and the apparent purpose of making the contract.’
“See also Picard v. Richards, Wyo., 366 P.2d 119 (1961). The basic purpose of contract interpretation —to determine the intention of the parties—remains the same, however, regardless of the form of the agreement. Dawson v. Meike, supra.” Id. at 70-71.
The foregoing quotation from Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company of Wyoming, Wyo., 612 P.2d 463 (1980), continued:
“If the contract is ambiguous, resort may be had to extrinsic evidence. J.W. Denio Milling Co. v. Malin, 25 Wyo. 143, 165 P. 1113 (1917); Kilbourne-Park Corporation v. Buckingham, Wyo., 404 P.2d 244 (1965). An ambiguous contract ‘is an agreement which is obscure in its meaning, because of indefiniteness of expression, or because a double meaning is present.’ Bulis v. Wells, supra, 565 P.2d at 490. Ambiguity justifying extraneous evidence is not generated by the subsequent disagreement of the parties concerning its meaning. Homestake-Sapin Partners v. United States, 10th Cir.1967, 375 F.2d 507.” Id. at 465.
That the word “minerals” used in the context under consideration here is ambiguous is evidenced by the many source materials and cases cited in the majority opinion concerning its meaning. Used in this context, it is not plain and clear, is not definite in that expressed, and can be understood in more than one way. As noted supra, if given its ordinary and natural meaning in this context, the conveyance would transfer nothing. “Mineral” is defined in Webster’s Third International Dictionary, p. 1437 (1971), as
“any of various naturally occurring homogeneous or apparently homogeneous and usu[ally] but not necessarily solid substances (as ore, coal, asbestos, asphalt, borax, clay, fuller’s earth, pigments, precious stones, rock phosphate, salt, soapstone, sulphur, building stone, cement rock, peat, sand, gravel, slate, salts extracted from any river, lake, and ocean waters, petroleum, water, natural gas, air, and gases extracted from the air) obtained for man’s use usu[ally] from the ground * * * something that is neither animal nor vegetable * * *.”
The ambiguity, then, must be resolved under our rules of construction by ascertaining the intention of the parties — primarily that of the grantor in a deed. In doing so, I do not agree with the majority opinion that we can disregard the precedent set by this court in Chittim v. Belle Fourche Bentonite Products Co., 60 Wyo. 235, 149 P.2d 142 (1944). The parties must be taken to have acted with knowledge of, and in accordance with, established law. Their intent at the time of the deed must have been with knowledge of the definition of “minerals” contained in the Chittim *1007case. In that instance, the mineral in question was bentonite. This court said:
“Bentonite would appear to be a mineral within the definition adopted by the Court in McCombs v. Stephenson, 154 Ala. 109, 44 So. 867, and approved by the authors of Morrison’s Mining Rights 16th Ed. (1936), p. 250, as follows: ‘any form of earth, rock, or metal of greater value while in place than the enclosing country or superficial soil’. And Mr. Lindley, Vol. I, Lindley on Mines, 3rd Ed. (1914), Sec. 93, p. 156, sums up an exhaustive examination of the English and American case law on the subject with the statement:
“ ‘The real test seems to be the character of the deposit as occurring independently of the mere soil, valuable in itself for commercial purposes, that is, near enough to a market to have a value.’ ” Id. at 145-46.
Gravel will satisfy this definition if it has the requisite value. And there may be instances wherein a reservation of minerals has been made in past years and wherein the requisite value was present and recognized to be so in the minds of the parties. Since the scope of the grant, reservation or exception is that intended by the parties— primarily by the grantor, the requisite value must be determined as of the time of the grant, reservation or exception.
In this case, the mineral reservation or exception was contained in a deed dated December 18, 1978. The requisite value of gravel at that place did not exist at that time. It was not then valuable in itself for commercial purposes. It was not near enough to a market to have a value, and since the purchase by the Highway Department was for more than gravel (see note 2), one can question whether or not it has “ ‘greater value while in place than the enclosing country or superficial soil’ ” or whether or not it was “ ‘occurring independently of the mere soil;’ ” id. at 146, with reference to its value. It was only when the Highway Department began constructing the road west of Crowheart in 1985 and 1986 that this gravel obtained the requisite value.
Accordingly, I conclude that the reservation or exception of “minerals” in the 1978 deed was not intended by the parties to include gravel.

. In its footnote 2, the majority opinion lists doctrines or tests used by courts in deciding whether or not gravel is included in a grant, or in a reservation or exception of "minerals" in an instrument.

. Of note is the fact that the agreement between the Highway Department and Mitchells was for purchase of “all of the sand, stone, gravel or soil which said Department may remove” for use on a highway construction project. The record does not reflect if payment was made for only gravel, and it cannot be assumed that payment was not also for the other three substances.