Brooks v. Gaffin

• Decision Date: 22 May 1906
• Citation: 95 S.W. 418,196 Mo. 351
• Parties: BROOKS et al. v. GAFFIN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

95 S.W. 418

196 Mo. 351

BROOKS et al. v. GAFFIN.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 22, 1906.

MINES AND MINERALS—MINING LEASES—FORFEITURE —RECOVERY OF POSSESSION—EJECTMENT.

Ejectment lies to recover land leased for mining purposes, when the lease contains a clause providing for a forfeiture for noncompliance by the lessee with the conditions thereof, and a breach is shown.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lafayette County; Samuel Davis, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Brooks and others against Otho M. Gaffin. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

See 90 S. W. 808.

This is an action of ejectment to recover certain coal lands which had been leased to defendant by Alexander Brooks in his lifetime, and the cause is now here upon appeal from a judgment in the Lafayette county circuit court. The cause of action is thus stated in the petition of plaintiff filed in the circuit court of Lafayette county: "Plaintiff avers that the said plaintiffs, Sydney W. Brooks, Clellia John Brooks, and Mary E. Brooks, are infants, being under the age of twenty-one years, and that they sue by their lawfully appointed and duly qualified guardian of their person and curator of their estate, Mary A. Brooks, who is adult, and also sues in her own right as coplaintiff. Plaintiffs aver that the said Mary A. Brooks is the widow, and the other plaintiffs are the children and only heirs at law, of Alexander Brooks, deceased, who departed this life on or about the ____ day of February, 1901, seised and possessed of the following described premises, situate in the county aforesaid, to wit: The northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section one (1), township fifty (50), range twenty-seven (27); that part of the west half of the southwest quarter of section thirty-six (36), township fifty-one (51), range twenty-seven (27), that lies south of the right of way of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, except sixty-six feet off of the west side of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section thirty-six (36), and ten acres off of the west side of the east half of the southwest quarter of said section thirty-six (36), and the west side of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section one (1), except one-half acre off the south end of said ten-acre tract, said strip being made by a line beginning at a point on the south line of the said railway right of way and running south parallel with the section line to the south line of said northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section one (1). Plaintiffs aver that upon the death of said Alexander Brooks the title in fee and right of possession of said property descended to and vested in said plaintiffs. Plaintiffs aver that on the 8th day of January, 1903, they were lawfully entitled to the possession of the premises above described, and that, being so entitled to the possession of the same, the defendant afterward, on the 9th day of January, 1903, entered into such premises and unlawfully withholds from plaintiffs the possession thereof, to their damage in the sum of one hundred dollars. Plaintiffs further aver that the monthly value, rents, and profits of said premises is fifty dollars. Plaintiffs further aver that said defendant has committed waste upon said premises on said 9th day of January, 1903, and on sundry and divers other days, by wrongfully and without leave entering on said premises, and digging, excavating, and carrying away the coal thereunder, to the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, to the damage of plaintiffs in the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars. Wherefore plaintiffs demand judgment for the recovery of said premises and one hundred dollars damages for unlawfully upholding same from plaintiffs, and the further sum of two hundred and fifty dollars for the said waste committed as aforesaid, and fifty dollars for monthly rents and profits from the rendition of judgment until the possession of the premises is delivered to plaintiffs, and for all other and further general relief." The answer was a general denial.

Upon the trial the facts are practically undisputed. Mary A. Brooks is the widow of Alexander Brooks, and her coplaintiffs are his children and heirs at law. The legal title to the land involved in this controversy was in Alexander Brooks, and upon his death descended to the plaintiffs in this cause. Prior to the death of Alexander Brooks he executed a mining lease to the defendant. This lease was introduced in evidence. It can serve no useful purpose to reproduce such lease in full; but it is sufficient to indicate substantially some of the essential clauses. It contained the following express clause regarding the forfeiture. It provided: "On the nonperformance of or noncompliance with any of the terms or conditions of this agreement on the part of the second party [Otho M. Gaffin] this lease shall be forfeited at the option of the party of the first part, who shall be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the premises on ten days' written notice to that effect to said second party, his assigns, or legal reppresentatives. The second party [Otho M. Gaffin] for himself, assigns, and legal representatives agrees to surrender the peaceful and full possession of the premises on the...