concurring.
I agree with the result the Court reaches; it comports with, and indeed is required by, our opinion today in Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.1991). I am puzzled, however, that the Court considers Alford v. Krum, 671 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.1984), inapplicable to this case. I fail to see a meaningful distinction between this case and Alford.
The grantors in Alford owned all of the minerals in the property in issue, subject to a lease. So did the grantors in this case. The Alford grantors conveyed “one-half of the one-eighth interest in and to all the oil and gas and other minerals”. Id. at 871. The grantors in this case conveyed “all that certain undivided one-sixteenth (½6) interest in and to all the oil and gas and other minerals”. These two granting clauses are practically identical.
The deeds in both cases acknowledged the existence of a mineral lease. The Alford deed stated: “And said ... lands now being under an oil and gas lease ..., it is understood and agreed that this sale is made subject to said lease, but covers and includes ½6 of all the oil royalty and gas rental or royalty due and to be paid under the terms of said lease.” Id. at 872. The deed in this case states: “It is the intention of the parties ... that the grantee herein is to receive ½6 part of the oil, gas or other mineral ... produced by the holder of the lease on said land, that grantors now intend to convey one-half of the interest they now have in such production under said lease.” I see no material difference in these provisions.
Both deeds also contemplated the eventual termination of the existing lease. The Alford deed stated: “and in the event that the ... lease for any reason becomes can-celled or forfeited, then and in that event, the lease interests and all future rentals on said land, for oil, gas and mineral privileges shall be owned jointly by [grantee and grantors] each owning a one-half interest in all oil, gas and other minerals in and upon said land, together with one-half interest in all future rents.” Id. at 872. The deed before us states: “it is the intention of the grantors herein that in event said lease is forfeited, ... the grantee is to have and hold an equal undivided one-half of all such minerals.” Although the divergence in the language of the two deeds is greater here than in the two instances previously examined, the effect of each provision appears to be the same.
If Alford and this case are not twins, there is certainly a strong resemblance between them. In Luckel and this case both, we depart from the rule stated in Alford and adopt the rule proposed in its dissent. The confusion left by the Court’s failure to say so is unnecessary.