Arbuthnot v. Eclipse Land & Min. Co.

Decision Date08 January 1906
Citation115 Mo. App. 600,92 S.W. 170
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesARBUTHNOT et al. v. ECLIPSE LAND & MIN. CO. et al.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Howard Gray, Judge.

Action by C. W. Arbuthnot and another against the Eclipse Land & Mining Company and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Robert A. Mooneyham and H. W. Currey, for appellants. Thomas & Hackney, for respondents.

BROADDUS, P. J.

The court sustained a demurrer to plaintiffs' petition, and they appealed.

The petition is substantially as follows: In February, 1901, the defendant the Eclipse Land & Mining Company held a mining lease for the unexpired term of eight years on certain real estate in the county of Jasper, and without putting up mining rules and regulations, as required by the statute, gave verbal permission to W. B. Smith and Orlando Williams to mine on a part of said premises; and it was also verbally agreed that they and their assigns should have the right to mine on the land during the terms of said company's lease. Afterwards, on May 2, 1901, said company posted rules and regulations, which, however, did not specify the time during which the mining right should continue; but it was agreed verbally, at the time when said Smith and Williams signed the register of the rules, that their right to mine should continue during the unexpired term of said company's lease. Afterwards Smith and Williams transferred certain of their interest to the firm of Lichliter & Co., by the terms of which the latter were to pay the Eclipse Company a certain royalty and also to pay Smith and Williams a royalty. Under the arrangement Smith and Williams and Lichliter & Co. operated the mines, and the latter paid royalty to the Eclipse Company and to Smith...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Woodruff v. Superior Mineral Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 1934
    ... ... acknowledged and recorded in the county wherein the land ... lies, and therefore respondents are excluded from the ... provisions ... Mining Co., 106 Mo.App. 627, ... l. c. 631-632; Arbuthnot v. Mining Co., 115 Mo.App ... 600, l. c. 604-605; Mining Co. v. Hodge, ... Stover, 66 Mo. 430; Arbuthnot v. Land & Min ... Co., 115 Mo.App. 600, 92 S.W. 170; Robinson v. Troup ... Min. Co., ... ...
  • State ex rel. Superior Mineral Co. v. Hostetter
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1935
    ...of the Kansas City Court of Appeals: Robinson v. Mining Co., 55 Mo.App. 662; Ashcraft v. Mining Co., 106 Mo.App. 627; Arbuthnot v. Mining Co., 115 Mo.App. 600. And is conflict with the following decisions of the Springfield Court of Appeals: Mining Co. v. Hodge, 185 Mo.App. 138; Davis v. So......
  • Woodruff v. Superior Min. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 1934
    ...Mo. 1929; Robinson v. Mining Co., 55 Mo. App. 662, l.c. 665-667; Ashcraft v. Mining Co., 106 Mo. App. 627, l.c. 631-632; Arbuthnot v. Mining Co., 115 Mo. App. 600, l.c. 604-605; Mining Co. v. Hodge, 185 Mo. App. 138, l.c. 145; Davis v. Solomon (Mo. App.), 243 S.W. 410. (2) As to the right, ......
  • Arbuthnot v. Eclipse Land and Mining Company
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 1906

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT