Chappel v. Foster

• Decision Date: 11 May 1912
• Docket Number: 17,663
• Citation: 87 Kan. 203,123 P. 870
• Parties: THOMAS CHAPPEL, Appellant, v. WILLIAM FOSTER, Appellee
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

123 P. 870

87 Kan. 203

THOMAS CHAPPEL, Appellant, v. WILLIAM FOSTER, Appellee

No. 17,663

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 11, 1912

Decided January, 1912.

Appeal from Osage district court.

Judgment affirmed.$100c:SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

LEASE--Mining--Breach by Lessor--Nominal Damages. A lessee who has the exclusive right to conduct mining operations upon a tract of land for a stated period can not recover more than nominal damages from one who has wrongfully removed a part of the mineral, where it appears that he would not within the life of his lease have reached the mineral so wrongfully taken.

A. M Harvey, and J. E. Addington, for the appellant.

Thomas M. Lillard, for the appellee.

OPINION

MASON J.:

Thomas Chappel had a twenty-year mining lease on a tract of coal land, which gave him the exclusive right to mine the coal for that period, paying a royalty to the owner. The lessee of a neighboring tract extended his operations into that controlled by Chappel, and took out a considerable quantity of coal. Chappel sued William Foster, the owner of the tract on which the other mine was located. He was denied relief and appeals.

Although a lessee who has an exclusive right to conduct mining operations is not the owner of the mineral in place ( Gas Co. v. Neosho County, 75 Kan. 335, 89 P. 750) there are cases holding that he can maintain an action against one who wrongfully removes a part of it ( Attersoll v. Stevens, [Eng.] 1 Taunt. 183; Chamberlain v. Collinson, 45 Iowa 429; Mining Co. v. Mining Co., 93 Mich. 90, 53 N.W. 4, 32 Am. St. Rep. 488; Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England v. North Eastern Railway Co., [Law Rep. 1876] 4 Ch. 844, 47 Law J. Ch. 20; Meeks v. Mining Co., 141 Mo.App. 648, 124 S.W. 1084). These cases seem to assume the sustaining of a substantial loss by the lessee, and deal mainly with the technical question whether he has such a standing in law that he may demand compensation for it. In cases where that feature of the matter has been specifically considered it has uniformly been held that the lessee can recover only nominal damages unless he shows that he actually was injured by reason of the wrongful taking of the mineral. (Baker et al. v. Hart et al., 123 N.Y. 470, 25 N.E. 948, 12 L. R. A. 60; Arnold v. Bennett, 92 Mo.App. 156; Providence Min. & Mill. Co. v. Nicholson, 178 F. 29.) Meeks v. Mining Co., 141 Mo.App. 648, 124 S.W. 1084, distinguishes Arnold v. Bennett, 92 Mo.App. 156, on the ground that in the earlier case the contract amounted only to the grant of a license, while in the later it was in strict terms a lease. The distinction is elaborated in cases collected in 18 L.R.A. 492, a...