imageUsing a fraction of a fraction instead of a percentage can cost an oil and gas fortune.

The lesson came in Hyshaw v. Dawkins, No. 14-0984 (Tex. Jan. 29, 2016), a fight over a 69 year-old will. It shows what a mess can result from the fondness of oil and gas people for a particular kind of fraction — the sort with an eight in the denominator.

Fractions as shorthand

Oil and gas people like to speak in eighths.

They say “8/8ths” when they mean “all”, for instance.

And for many decades, until at least the 1970s, the “usual” or “customary” royalty for the land/mineral owner meant one of those eighths.* (The exploration and production company leased the property from the land/mineral owner and paid all drilling and operating costs in return for the other 7/8ths).

Indeed, the notion of dividing oil and gas interests into eighths embedded itself so deeply into the consciousness of the oil and gas milieu that “many landowners erroneously believed the landowner’s royalty could be no greater than 1/8″. Hyshaw v. Dawkins, slip op. at 1 (emphasis added).

And they also thought, incorrectly, that a lease ceded to the lessee forever all but 1/8 of the minerals when in fact they retained the right to reversion of the minerals if the lease terminated (i.e., they had a possibility of reverter).

Thus, although a royalty equals a “percentage share” of production from a well or proceeds — 12.5 percent, say — leases, wills, deeds, and other conveyances have typically expressed the percentage as a fractional shorthand — 1/8.

The case

Hyshaw v. Dawkins arose from the 1947 will and death of Ethel Hyshaw.

When she shuffled off the mortal coil in 1949, Ms. Hyshaw owned the surface of, and minerals under, 1415 acres in Karnes County, southeast of San Antonio. She bequeathed the property to her son and two daughters in three separate, and unequal, parcels. But she granted “each of my children . . . an undivided one-third (1/3) of an undivided one-eighth (1/8) of all oil, gas or other minerals in or under or that may be produced from any of said lands”. Id. at 4.

A later passage stated that, in the event she sold a royalty interest during her lifetime, the son and daughters “shall each receive one-third of the remainder of the unsold royalty.” Id. (emphasis added). Note the non-specific, un-fractional “remainder of the unsold royalty” language.

The matriarch thus treated her offspring unequally vis-a-vis how much of the 1415 acres each one received but the same with respect to the royalty payable to them upon lease of the lands.

Or did she?

Successors to the interests of Ms. Hyshaw’s children got in a fight over what “one-third (1/3) of an undivided one-eighth (1/8)” meant. One group urged that it simply equaled .04167 or 4.167 percent (.3333 x .125). The other faction claimed that “undivided one-eighth (1/8)” referred to whatever royalty the lessee agreed to — which has in more recent years often exceeded 1/8 (12.5 percent) by a factor of two (25 percent).

The fight thus concerned whether the successors to fee ownership of the unequal parcels could retain all the benefit of higher royalty rates in more recent leases or whether they instead had to share it with the others.


The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of sharing. As Justice Eva Guzman explained:

The third royalty clause demonstrates that Ethel intended the royalty devise to be equal and that re-equalization would be required if an inter vivos event diminished the available royalty. If Ethel had truly intended the fee-owning child to benefit exclusively from any excess royalty, as Inez’s successors argue, equalization following a royalty-diminishing transaction would produce a paradoxical result. The only plausible construction supported by a holistic reading of the will is that Ethel used “one-eighth royalty” as shorthand for the entire royalty interest a lessor could retain under a mineral lease, anticipated the siblings would share that royalty equally, and intended proportional equalization of any royalty remaining following an inter vivos transaction. We therefore hold that Ethel’s will devised to each child 1/3 of any and all royalty interest on all the devised land tracts.

Id. at 22-23 (footnotes omitted).


The outcome of Hyshaw v. Dawkins means uncertainty around conveyances of royalty interests that express the grant in fraction-of-1/8 terms.

In disputes over interpretation of both wills and inter vivos transfers, courts in Texas will treat a conveyance of a 1/8 royalty interest as suggesting, but not proving, an intent to part with a “floating” interest, which will vary depending on the royalty rate that the land/mineral owner negotiates with the lessee/exploration and production company. Other language in the will or deed must ordinarily buttress the inference of a wish to create a royalty interest that varies rather than one that always equals the product of multiplying the fractions.

Will the incidence of these sorts of disputes fade with time, as limitations defenses and equitable doctrines bar complaints about royalty payments? That topic will simply have to wait.

* “For many years,” one authority notes, “almost all oil and gas leases reserved a 1/8th royalty.”An example of the “printed form” or “Producers 88” appears as Figure 1 in this article.

Email this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Barry Barnett Barry Barnett

Clients and colleagues call Barry Barnett an “incredibly gifted lawyer” (Chambers and Partners) who is “magic in the courtroom” (Who’s Who Legal), “the top antitrust lawyer in Texas” (Chambers and Partners), and “a person of unquestioned integrity” (David J. Beck, founder of Beck…

Clients and colleagues call Barry Barnett an “incredibly gifted lawyer” (Chambers and Partners) who is “magic in the courtroom” (Who’s Who Legal), “the top antitrust lawyer in Texas” (Chambers and Partners), and “a person of unquestioned integrity” (David J. Beck, founder of Beck Redden).

Barnett is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, and Lawdragon has named him one of the top 500 lawyers in the United States three years in a row. Best Lawyers in America has honored him as “Lawyer of the Year” for Bet-the-Company Litigation (2019 and 2017) and Patent Litigation (2020) in Houston. Based in Texas and New York, Barnett has tried complex business disputes across the United States.

Barnett’s background, training, and experience make him indispensable to his clients. The small-town son of a Texas roughneck and grandson of a Texas sharecropper, Barnett “developed an unusual common sense about people, their motivations, and their dilemmas,” according to former client Michael Lewis.

Barnett has been historically recognized for his effectiveness and judgment. His peers chose him, for example, to the American College of Trial Lawyers and American Law Institute. His decades of trial and appellate work representing both plaintiffs and defendants have made him a master strategist and nimble tactician in complex disputes.

Barnett focuses on enforcement of antitrust laws, the “Magna Carta of free enterprise,” in Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall’s memorable phrase. “Barry is one of the nation’s outstanding antitrust lawyers,” according to Joseph Goldberg, a member of the Private Antitrust Enforcement Hall of Fame. Named among Texas’s top ten antitrust lawyers of 2023, Business Today calls Barnett a “trailblazer” among the “distinguished legal minds” who “dedicate their skill and expertise to the maintenance of healthy competition in various sectors” of the Lone Star State’s booming economy. Barnett is also adept in energy and intellectual property matters and has battled for clients against a Who’s Who list of corporate behemoths, including Abbott Labs, Alcoa, Apple, AT&T, BlackBerry, Broadcom, Comcast, Dow, JPMorgan Chase, Samsung, and Visa.

Barnett commands a courtroom with calm and credibility and “is the perfect lawyer for bet the company litigation,” said Scott Regan, General Counsel of former client Whiting Petroleum. His performance before the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend prompted the Court to withdraw the question on which it had granted review. The judge in a trial involving mobile phone technology called Barnett “one of the best” and that his opening statement the finest he had ever seen. Another trial judge told Barnett minutes after a jury returned a favorable verdict against the county’s biggest employer that he was one of the two best trial lawyers he’d ever come across—adding that the other one was dead.

A versatile trial lawyer, Barnett knows how to handle a case all the way from strategic pre-suit planning to affirmance on appeal. He’s tried cases to verdict and then briefed and argued them when they went before appellate courts, including the Second, Third, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits, the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and (in the case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend) the Supreme Court of the United States.

Barnett is a sought-after public speaker, often serving on panels and talking about topics like the trials of antitrust class actions and techniques for streamlining complex litigation. He also comments on trends in commercial litigation and the implications of major rulings for outlets such as NPR, Reuters, Law360, Corporate Counsel, and The Dallas Morning News. He’s even appeared in a Frontline program about underfunding of state pensions, authored chapters on “Fee Arrangements” and “Techniques for Expediting and Streamlining Litigation” (the latter with Steve Susman) in the ABA’s definitive treatise on Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts, 5th, and commented on How Antitrust Enforcers Might Think Like Plaintiffs’ Lawyers.

Clients and other hard graders have praised Barnett for his courtroom skills and legal acumen.

A client in a $100 million oil and gas case, which Barnett’s team won at trial and held on appeal, said Barnett and his team “presented a rare combination of strong legal intellect, common sense about right and wrong, and credibility in the courtroom.” David McCombs at Haynes and Boone said Barnett “has a natural presence that goes over well with juries and judges.”

Even former adversaries give Barnett high marks. Lead opposing counsel in a decade-long antitrust slugfest said “Barry is a highly skilled advocate. He understands what really matters in telling a narrative and does so in a very compelling manner.”

Barnett relishes opportunities to collaborate with all kinds of people. At the Center for American and International Law (CAIL), founded by a former prosecutor at Nuremberg in 1947 and headquartered in the Dallas area, he has served on the Executive Committee, co-chaired the committee that produced CAIL’s first-ever strategic plan, supported CAIL’s Institute for Law Enforcement Administration and other development efforts, and proposed formation of a new Institute for Social Justice Law. CAIL’s former President David Beck said “Barry is extremely bright” and is “very well prepared in every lawsuit or professional task he undertakes.”

Barnett is also a Trustee of the New-York Historical Society, a Sterling Fellow at Yale, a member of the Yale University Art Gallery’s Governing Board, a winner of the Class Award for his work on behalf of his college class, and a proud contributor to the Yellow Ribbon Program at Harvard Law. Barnett’s pro bono work includes leading the trial team representing people who are at greatest risk of severe illness and death as a result of being exposed to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 while being detained in the Dallas County jail—work for which he received the NGAN Legal Advocacy Fund RBG Award.

At Susman Godfrey, Barnett has served on the firm’s Executive Committee, Employment Committee, and ad hoc committees on partner compensation, succession of leadership, and revision of the firm’s partnership agreement. He also twice chaired the Practice Development Committee.

Barnett understands that clients face many pressures. Managing the stress is important, especially in matters that take years to resolve. He encourages clients to call him whenever they have a question or concern and to keep the inevitable ups and downs in perspective. He wants them to know that he will do his level best to help them achieve their goals. He also strives to foster trust and to make working with him a pleasure.

Cyrus “Skip” Marter, the General Counsel of Bonanza Creek in Denver and a former Susman Godfrey partner and client, said Barnett is “excellent about communicating with clients in a full and honest manner” and can “negotiate for his clients from a position of strength, because he is not afraid to take a case through a full trial on the merits.” Stacey Doré, the President of Hunt Utility Services and a former client, said that Barnett is “an excellent trial lawyer and the person you want to hire for your bet-the-company cases. He is client focused, responsive, and uniquely savvy about trial and settlement strategy.” A New York colleague said, “Barry is a joy to work with as co-counsel. He tackles complex procedural and factual hurdles capably, efficiently, and without drama.”

Barnett’s wide-ranging experience and calm, down-to-earth approach enable him to connect with clients, judges, jurors, witnesses, and even opposing counsel. He grew up in Nacogdoches, Texas. He co-captained his high school varsity football team as an All-East Texas middle linebacker while also serving as the Editor of Key Club’s Texas-Oklahoma District, won the Best Typist award, took the History Team to glory, and sang in the East Texas All Region Choir. As Dan Kelly of client Vistra Corp. put it, Barnett is “a great person to be around.”

Barnett is steady and loyal. He has practiced at Susman Godfrey his entire career. He and his wife Nancy live in Dallas and enjoy spending time in Houston and New York. Their daughter works for H-E-B in Houston, and their son is a Haynes and Boone transactions lawyer in Dallas.

As a member of Ivy League championship football teams in his junior and senior years at Yale and a parent of two Yalies, Barnett has no trouble choosing sides for “The Game” in November. And he knows how important fighting all the way to the end is. On his last play from scrimmage, in the waning minutes of The Game on Nov. 22, 1980, he recovered a Crimson fumble.

Yale won, 14-0.