Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: October to December, 1915 Page: 57
x, 74 p.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
MINING LEASES.
was under the other three tracts, where all the facts concerning the
disputed title were of record when the lease was made, and the mistake,
if there was a mistake, was a mistake of law and not of fact.
Clark v. Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. (Pennsylvania), 95 Atlantic, 462, July, 1915.
TITLE TO LEASED TRACTS MISTAKE AS TO ONE TRACT.
A lease of coal lands granted to the lessee all the coal underlying
four contiguous pieces of land separately described, the lessee to hold
the premises until he should have mined and removed therefrom all the
merchantable and mineable coal, and to pay a stipulated royalty per
ton thereon with a fixed minimum cash rental, such cash rental to be
paid by royalties. The lessee after operating the premises for 20
years and mining and removing coal from all four of the demised
tracts, paid the lessor all fixed cash rentals and royalties as they
accrued; and the lessee while continuing to mine coal from the prem-
ises, and while all the merchantable and mineable coal had not
been mined, refused payment of royalties and of rentals on the ground
that the title and ownership of the fourth tract described in the
lease was not in the lessor, but was in fact in the lessee, and that
the lessee, believing and relying on the title and ownership by
the lessor, had through accident and mistake paid more for coal
than was in the other three tracts of land and was therefore under
no obligation to pay the lessor for additional coal mined, but the
lessee was entitled to reimburse himself for such overpayments
from those tracts which the lessor did in fact own. Granting that
the title to the fourth tract was in the lessee at the time of the
execution of the lease, yet the mere fact that the lessee took the
lease is not sufficient of itself to show that there was any mistake
as to the title at the time the contract was executed; and as the
leased property consisted of four small contiguous pieces of coal
claimed by the lessor, none or not more than one of which was
large enough for a coal operation, the lessor manifestly would desire
to let the coal under the four pieces if at all, as working the smaller
tracts as a separate operation would not be practicable. The court
must assume, in the absence of a showing, that it was more than
probable that the question of the title was disclosed, and while the
lessee may have asserted title yet he agreed to take the lease as a
compromise of any conflicting claims because of the advantages
that would accrue therefrom; and after the lapse of 20 years, during
which time the lessee has operated the coal and paid the rental,
direct and satisfactory proof of the alleged mistake must be pro-
duced before a court of equity would relieve the lessee from the
payment of the stipulated royalties.
Clark v. Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. (Pennsylvania), 95 Atlantic, 462, July, 1915.57
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Thompson, J. W. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: October to December, 1915, report, 1916; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc12324/m1/67/: accessed April 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.