Middleton v. Broussard

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a conveyance of 1/64 royalty interest in minerals under “all of the above described land and premises” operated to convey 1/64 royalty interest from all lands described, not just the fractional interest conveyed
• holding that a conveyance of 1/64 royalty interest in minerals under “all of the above described land and premises” operated to convey 1/64 royalty interest from all lands described, not just the fractional interest conveyed
• holding that a conveyance of 1/64 royalty interest in minerals under “all of the above described land and premises” operated to convey 1/64 royalty interest from all lands described, not just the fractional interest conveyed
• holding that a conveyance of 1/64 royalty interest in minerals under A all of the above described land and premises @ operated to convey 1/64 royalty interest from all lands described, not just the fractional interest conveyed
• holding deed language referring to fractional interests in “land described in the deed” will result in different royalty calculation than language referring to fractional interests in “land conveyed by the deed”
• when a document is unambiguous, the parties = intent is determined from the document = s language

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).