I respectfully dissent.
Humble’s alternative position set out in the majority opinion should be sustained. In my opinion, the 1934 amendment to Ar-. tide 3281 confers on the Commissioner of the General Land Office the exclusive authority to lease escheated lands. It is unnecessary, therefore, to decide whether the Relinquishment Act has been repealed, or whether it applies only to school lands sold prior to the enactment of House Bill 358.
As amended, Article 3281 created a special category of permanent free school fund lands. Hence, the sale and leasing of those lands are governed entirely by the terms of the Article, and the provisions of the statute preclude Standard from executing an oil and gas lease on the land in controversy.
Article 3281, as amended in 1934, after setting escheated lands apart to the Permanent Free School Fund and- directing that they be listed as escheated permanent free school lands, says:
“The Commissioner of the General Land Office may lease said lands for grazing purposes under existing laws relating to the leasing for grazing purposes of unsold school lands. The Commissioner of the General Land Office may lease said lands for agricultural, residential, business or other purposes for a term of not to exceed two (2) years, said rental to be payable in money, the amount of said rental and all other terms of the lease to be fixed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Any escheated permanent free school lands shall be subject to lease for oil and gas development or subject to other mineral development under Statutes governing the leasing for mineral purposes [of] all other unsold permanent free school lands. Any escheated permanent free school lands may be sold by the Commissioner of the General Land Office for not less than one-tenth of the purchase price in cash and the balance of said purchase price payable in nine equal annual installments,, said deferred installments to bear interest at the rate of six (6) per cent per annum. Any lands so sold shall be sold to the highest bidder as are other public free school lands but no escheat-ed lands shall be sold at a price of less-than Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2.50) per acre. All sales of escheated permanent free school lands shall be with a reservation to the State of all-the minerals in the land in favor of the Permanent Free School Fund. All sums, received from the leasing, mineral developments, or sale of escheated lands shall be deposited in the Permanent School Fund of Texas, The Commissioner of the General Land Office, is-authorized to adopt such regulations as he deems necessary to carry out this Article. Said regulations or forms adopted shall be approved by the Attorney General.”
This Court recognized in Wintermann v. McDonald, 129 Tex. 275, 102 S.W.2d 167, at 172, 104 S.W.2d 4 (1937), that Article 3281 creates a special category of land in-the Permanent Free School Fund in which all minerals, rather than royalties as under Article 5421c, are reserved to the State when escheated school lands are sold by the-State. But the question here is whether Article 3281 authorizes the Land Commissioner to execute oil and gas leases on lands sold from the special category with a reservation of all minerals. If it does, it must follow that the owner of the land cannot also be authorized to execute oil and gas-leases thereon by the Relinquishment Act.
The first three sentences in the quoted' provisions of Article 3281 define the powers of the Land Commissioner to execute leases. The third of the sentences, which has been emphasized in the quotation of the Article, defines the power of the Commissioner to execute mineral leases. Humble asserts that the sentence means that the Commissioner is authorized to lease all escheated permanent free school lands, sold and unsold,, for oil *401and gas and other mineral development, according to the procedures provided in other statutes for the leasing of unsold lands. Standard et al. contend that the sentence means that the Commissioner’s authority to lease for oil and gas and other mineral development is confined to unsold lands as in the case of other free school lands under Article 5421c. I agree with Humble’s interpretation of the sentence
It is our duty to give the sentence the meaning the Legislature intended it to have insofar as it lies within our ability to do so. When the Legislature fashioned the language, of the third sentence, it knew that it was providing in the same Article for the sale of escheated lands with a reservation of alb minerals to the State. Keeping that fact in mind, legislative intent of the language used in writing the third sentence is, it seems to me, keyed to the opening word of the sentence, “any.”
The word any” has a variety of meanings, depending on the context in which it is used. See 3 Corpus Juris Secundum, p. 1398 et seq.; 3A Words and Phrases, p. 53 et seq.; Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. 119. When used in a plural sense, particularly in an affirmative sentence, the word is very generally held to mean “all.” See Doherty v. King, 183 S.W.2d 1004, at 1007 (Tex.Civ.App.1944, writ dismissed); Branham v. Minear, 199 S.W.2d 841, at 845 (Tex.Civ.App.1947, n. r. e.); Hime v. City of Galveston, 268 S.W.2d 543, at 545 (Tex.Civ.App.1954, n. r. e.); 3 Corpus Juris Secundum, p. 1400; 3A Words and Phrases, p. 59. The sentence before us is an affirmative sentence, and the word “any” is used in the sentence in a plural sense. In the context in which it is used, it means “all.” Given the meaning of “all,” the sentence reads: “All escheated permanent free school lands.shall be subject to lease * * * under Statutes governing the leasing for mineral purposes' [of] all other unsold permanent, free school lands.” So written, the latter part of the sentence can mean nothing„ more than fhat the procedures provided in other statutes for leasing unsold .lands shall govern the leasing by the Commissioner of escheated permanent free school lands.
I would hold that Article 3281 authorizes-the Commissioner of the General Land Office to lease all escheated permanent free school lands, sold and unsold, for oil and gas' and other mineral development. It would follow that the oil and gas lease executed by Standard to Trace Mining Company is not a valid lease, and that the Commissioner of the General Land Office is not under, a legal duty to receive and file the certified copy-tendered.
CULVER and NORVELL, JJ., join in-this dissent.