Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 70
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DECISIONS ON MINES AND MINING.
of the plant and operation, the owner was to pay the contractee the
difference and thereupon the machinery and improvements were to
be the property of the owner.- The contractee did not exercise the,
option given him and the gold recovered during the season did not
equal his expenditures, but the difference was not paid by the owner.
The owner resumed possession of the mine, but the contractee failed
to remove his mining machinery and implements before the owner
became a bankrupt and the property passed into the hands of the
assignee. The contract between the owner and contractee was not a,
conveyance in the sense that it transfers anything that could be called
realty or that constituted a lease, but was in fact no more than a
contract for labor to be performed, merely fixing the compensation
for the services, and the contractee was in fact no more than a
licensee. But the contract in providing the manner in which the
mine owner was to become the owner of the mining machinery and
plant was in effect an agreement for a conditional sale, giving the
seller the right of property or possession until compliance with the
condition named, and on the failure of the owner to pay the difference
between the expenses incurred by the contractee and the amount of
gold recovered, the contractee had the title to the mining machinery
and plant and had the right to remove the same and this right could
not be defeated by an assignment in bankruptcy.
Seward Dredging Co., In re, 242 Federal 225, p. 228.
CONTRACT TO PUMP WATER--TERMINATION.
The lessees of certain mines and mining property by oral contract
employed a third person at a specified royalty on the ore mined to
pump the water from the mine and to keep it free from water. The
contract was indefinite as to its term and could be discontinued by
either party at any time on notice. But whether the lessee termi-
nated the contract by a notice of termination and whether there was
evidence to show that the notice was subsequently withdrawn and
pumping operations continued, is a question of fact to be determined
as such on the trial of the case.
Latshaw v. Stoddard (Missouri App.), 194 Southwestern 727, p. 728.
OPERATOR AS EMPLOYER-QUESTION OF FACT.
Where the evidence is conflicting as to whether or not an injured
miner was employed by the mine owner and operator or by an
independent contractor engaged by the coal-mining company under
a special contract to perform certain work in the mine, is a question
of fact to be submitted to and determined by the jury in the trial
of the case.
Corona Coal & Iron Co. v. Amerson (Alabama), 75 Southern 289.
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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, Joseph Wesley. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917, report, December 1917; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38745/m1/84/: accessed April 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.