Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 78
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DECISIONS ON MINES AND MINING.
purposes and the lease specified that the sublessee should keep the
demised property clear of water. The oral contract for pumping the
mine was not merged into the subsequent lease as the lease did not
cover and include the particular lots and mines from which the water
was pumped and that were to be mined and operated by the pumping
contractor as sublessee.
Latshaw v. Stoddard, (Missouri App.), 194 Southwestern 727, p. 728.
Mining leases do not constitute a sale of any part of the land, and
the ore or mineral derived from the usual operation of open mines or
quarries constitutes the rents and profits of the land and belongs to
the tenant for life or years; but this rule does not apply to unopened
mines in the absence of a contract for opening and leasing them.
Baumbach v. Sargent-Land Co., 243 U. S. 503, p. 517.
MINIMUM ROYALTY-APPLICATION TO UNKNOWN MINES.
A coal lease stipulated for the payment of minimum royalties on
three different and particularly named coal seams. On one of these
seams the lessee was to pay a stipulated royalty on a minimum pro-
duction of 20,000 tons a year until the coal was exhausted. It also
provided that if coal in another named vein or seam proved workable
a minimum royalty of 20,000 tons per year should be paid after the
mining of such vein or seam was begun, and after payments of the
minimum royalty on the other seam had ceased. The lease covered
all the coal underlying the tract and necessarily included all veins
known and also veins subsequently discovered and mined. But the
provision for a minimum royalty was expressly limited to the three
named veins and contains no language which expressly evidences a
purpose to place the obligation of the minimum royalty on veins
subsequently discovered and mined. Neither does the language
imply such a condition. When the lessor wished to impose a mini-
mum annual royalty he knew how to select the veins and to apply
suitable covenants for such purpose, and a court has no grounds for
saying that the lessor meant to contract for some other vein not
mentioned and where there is nothing to evidence any specific inten-
tion to subject unknown veins to a minimum royalty.
Birdsall v. Delaware Hudson Co., 240 Federal 618, p. 622.
MINIMUM ROYALTY-SUSPENSION OF OPERATIONS.
A coal-mining lease provided for the payment of a minimum
royalty, but also provided that during strikes and other unavoidable
Here’s what’s next.
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, 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/m1/92/: accessed July 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.