Guide · Texas · Deed construction
Duhig Rule and Overconveyance of Minerals in Texas
When a grantor owns only a fraction of the minerals under a tract, conveys "all that certain tract of land" by warranty deed, and reserves a mineral fraction without mentioning the prior outstanding mineral interest, the grant and the reservation cannot both be satisfied. Under Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., the reservation gives way to the warranty to the extent needed to make the grantee whole.
In one paragraph
In Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940), the grantor owned the surface and $\frac{1}{2}$ of the minerals (the other $\frac{1}{2}$ having been reserved in an earlier deed). She executed a general warranty deed conveying the land and reserved $\frac{1}{2}$ of the minerals without excepting the prior $\frac{1}{2}$ reservation. The Texas Supreme Court held that the deed purported to convey the surface and $\frac{1}{2}$ of the minerals with warranty of title, and that the grantor was estopped from claiming the reserved $\frac{1}{2}$ mineral interest in breach of her own warranty. As a result, the grantee took $\frac{1}{2}$ of the minerals, the prior owner kept $\frac{1}{2}$, and the grantor retained nothing. When a runsheet shows an unexcepted prior mineral reservation followed by a new reservation in a warranty deed, examiners flag a Duhig question and normally require a recorded Stipulation of Interest (Curative Index No. 04).
Worked math of a Duhig overconveyance
You can only spot an overconveyance if you run the chain back far enough to see the prior reservation. Compare the two chains below:
| Step in the chain | Example 1: Full wipeout of grantor's reservation | Example 2: Partial reduction of grantor's reservation |
|---|---|---|
| Deed 1 (Prior severance) | A conveys Blackacre to B, reserving $\frac{1}{2}$ MI. (A holds $\frac{1}{2}$; B holds $\frac{1}{2}$.) | A conveys Blackacre to B, reserving $\frac{1}{4}$ MI. (A holds $\frac{1}{4}$; B holds $\frac{3}{4}$.) |
| Deed 2 (Warranty deed with unexcepted reservation) | B conveys Blackacre to C by general warranty deed, reserving $\frac{1}{2}$ MI, with no mention of A's $\frac{1}{2}$ MI. | B conveys Blackacre to C by general warranty deed, reserving $\frac{1}{2}$ MI, with no mention of A's $\frac{1}{4}$ MI. |
| What Deed 2 purports to warrant to C | $1 - \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2}$ MI. | $1 - \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2}$ MI. |
| Result under Duhig | A keeps $\frac{1}{2}$ MI; C takes $\frac{1}{2}$ MI to satisfy B's warranty; B keeps $0$. | A keeps $\frac{1}{4}$ MI; C takes $\frac{1}{2}$ MI to satisfy B's warranty; B keeps $\frac{1}{4}$ MI ($\frac{3}{4} - \frac{1}{2}$). |
When Duhig applies, and when it does not
Whether Duhig shifts a reserved fraction depends on the exact granting clause, warranty clause, and exceptions in the deed:
- General and special warranty deeds: Texas courts have applied Duhig to both general warranty deeds and special warranty deeds where the grantor warrants title to a stated quantum of land or minerals without excepting prior reservations (Blanton v. Bruce, 688 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. App. - Eastland 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.)).
- Quitclaim deeds and "all of Grantor's right, title and interest": Duhig does not apply to a pure quitclaim deed or a deed that grants only whatever interest the grantor then owns, because the grantor has not purported to convey and warrant a specific fraction of the whole tract.
- "Subject to prior reservations of record": When a deed expressly states that the conveyance is made subject to prior mineral reservations of record and in addition reserves a stated fraction to the grantor, the grantee is put on notice that the prior reservations come out of the estate conveyed rather than out of the grantor's new reservation.
- Oil and gas leases (McMahon v. Christmann): In McMahon v. Christmann, 303 S.W.2d 341 (Tex. 1957), the Texas Supreme Court declined to extend the Duhig estoppel rule to the lessor's reserved royalty in an oil and gas lease where the lessee prepared the lease and proportionate-reduction clause.
Trial v. Dragon (2019): after-acquired title vs. independent heirship
What happens if a grantor conveys more mineral interest than he actually owns, breaching his warranty at the time of the deed, and the grantor's heirs later inherit the other mineral share from their mother? In Trial v. Dragon, 593 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 2019), a husband purported to convey an undivided $\frac{1}{2}$ interest in a tract when his wife actually owned half of that interest as her separate property. After both parents died, their sons inherited the mother's separate-property mineral share.
The Texas Supreme Court held that Duhig and the after-acquired title doctrine did not divest the sons of the mineral interest they inherited independently from their mother, who was not a party to the father's warranty deed. Instead, the breach of the father's warranty gave rise to a claim for money damages against the father's estate rather than estopping the heirs from claiming their mother's separate property.
How a Duhig question is cured on a runsheet
Because a single "subject to" clause or recital can flip the outcome of an overconveyance, a division-order or drilling examiner will rarely disburse suspended royalties on a disputed reservation without a curative instrument of record:
- Stipulation of Interest and Cross-Conveyance: Both chains of claimants (the grantor's successors and the grantee's successors) execute and record an instrument stipulating their exact fractional mineral interests and containing words of present grant and cross-conveyance (Curative Index No. 04).
- Full chain back to prior severances: A limited title search that starts at the 1960 warranty deed will never see the 1938 reservation that triggered the overconveyance. Running the grantee index back to the sovereign patent (or pre-severance deed) is what brings the prior reservation onto the runsheet.
Sources
- Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940).
Estoppel by warranty when a grantor reserves a mineral fraction without excepting a prior mineral reservation. Referenced October 13, 2026. - McMahon v. Christmann, 303 S.W.2d 341 (Tex. 1957).
Duhig rule not extended to reduce a lessor's reserved royalty in an oil and gas lease. Referenced October 13, 2026. - Trial v. Dragon, 593 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 2019). https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1444252/180203.pdf
Limits of Duhig and after-acquired title when heirs inherit an interest from an independent source. Opened October 13, 2026.
Request a search
Send the county and the legal description. One of our landmen reads the request and replies by email with what the county's records support, how far back we'd run it, and the terms for the work. Nothing starts until you say so.
We work as independent landmen, not attorneys. A runsheet is not an attorney's opinion on title; we work alongside your examiner. Which instrument clears a title requirement is a call for your examiner or attorney.
Rather call? (307) 263-8515 or hello@title.wiki.