Madelon Hysaw, Kathryn Hysaw Weafer, Michael and Cindy Burris Family Partnership Iii, Ltd., Byron M. Burris And…

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court held that the double‑fraction language in Ethel Hysaw’s 1947 will creates a floating one‑third royalty interest for each child, rather than a fixed one‑twenty‑fourth royalty. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and entered judgment in favor of the heirs asserting a floating royalty. The decision emphasizes a holistic, intent‑focused construction of testamentary instruments over mechanical multiplication of fractions.