Croley v. Round Mountain Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1964 |
| Citation | 374 S.W.2d 852 |
| Parties | A. J. CROLEY et al., Appellants, v. ROUND MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
E. B. Wilson, Pineville, for appellants.
T. E. Mahan, Williamsburg, William Hays, Winchester, Robert H. Hays, Lexington, for appellees.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
A. J. Croley and wife, owners of the surface of a tract of mountain land, brought this action against Round Mountain Coal Company and others, seeking to enjoin the defendants from conducting strip and auger on the tract and to recover damages for such mining already done. Judgment was entered dismissing the complaint on the ground that it did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Croleys have appealed.
The question presented is whether, under the terms of a reservation of mineral rights in favor of the grantor, in a deed by which the surface was conveyed to the Croleys' predecessor in title, the grantor and his lessees have the right to remove the coal by strip and auger mining.
At one time Greasy Brush Coal Company owned the tract in fee. In 1948 the company deeded the tract to the Croleys' predecessor in title, with this reservation:
Some 13 years later Greasy Brush Coal Company leased the mineral rights to Round Mountain Coal Company and that company then commenced the strip and auger mining operations that gave rise to this suit.
In Buchanan v. Watson, Ky., 290 S.W.2d 40, this Court held that under the terms of the so-called 'Mayo' form of mineral lease, which was prevalent in Kentucky in the early 1900's, the lessee has the right to strip and auger mine. The Mayo form of lease differs in several respects from the reservation clause here in question. The appellants maintain that because of those differences, and because the Mayo lease involves a grant of mineral rights (which will be construed most strongly in favor of the rights) whereas the instant case involves a reservation of mineral rights (which will be construed most strongly against the rights), the Buchanan case is not controlling here. (Buchanan has been followed in Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Neace, Ky., 337 S.W.2d 725; Kodak Coal Co. v. Smith, Ky., 338 S.W.2d 699; Ritchie v. Midland Mining Co., Ky., 347 S.W.2d 548; and Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Campbell, Ky., 371 S.W.2d 483.)
The Mayo form of lease provides that the lessee has the right to 'use and operate the same and surface thereof * * * in any manner that may be deemed necessary or convenient for mining' and it contains a release by the grantor of any claim for damages in the use of the land and the surface by the grantee. The appellants contend that these two provisions were of controlling consideration in the Buchanan case.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Harding
...Kodak Coal Co. v. Smith, Ky., 338 S.W.2d 699 (1960); Wiser Oil Co. v. Conley, Ky., 346 S.W.2d 718 (1960); and Croley v. Round Mountain Coal Co., Ky., 374 S.W.2d 852 (1964). See also, Martin v. Kentucky Oak Mining, Ky., 429 S.W.2d 395 (1968), in which the previous unanimity of the Court was ......
-
Akers v. Baldwin
...could justify damages and were not per se proper if they were "completely unnecessary" or "so out of line". In Croley v. Round Mountain Coal Co., Ky., 374 S.W.2d 852 (1964), mineral rights were retained under a reservation. Damages were allowed as the result of the mineral owner casting was......
-
Martin v. Kentucky Oak Min. Co.
...Wright v. Bethlehem Minerals Co., Ky., 368 S.W.2d 179; Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Campbell, Ky., 371 S.W.2d 483; and Croley v. Round Mountain Coal Co., Ky., 374 S.W.2d 852. So the issue in the instant case is simply whether the court shall stay with Buchanan v. Watson and the subsequent cases......
-
Watson v. Kenlick Coal Company, Inc.
...maliciously or arbitrarily. See, e. g., Martin v. Kentucky Oak Mining Co., 429 S.W.2d 395, 399 (Ky.1968); Croley v. Round Mountain Coal Co., 374 S.W.2d 852, 854 (Ky.1964); Blue Diamond Coal Co., Inc. v. Campbell, 371 S. W.2d 483, 485 (Ky.1963); Ritchie v. Midland Mining Co., 347 S.W.2d 548 ......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE COMMON LAW OF ACCESS AND SURFACE USE IN MINING
...v. Duricka 97 A.2d 825 (Penn. 1953). [56] Watson v. Kenlick Coal Co., 498 F.2d 1183 (6th Cir. 1974); Croley v. Round Mountain Coal Co., 374 S.W.2d 852 (Ky. 1964); Commonwealth v. Fitzmartin, 102 A.2d 893 (Pa. 1954). [57] Smith v. Moore, 474 P.2d 794 (Colo. 1970); State v. Talton, 35 S.E.2d ......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE COMMON LAW OF ACCESS AND SURFACE USE IN MINING
...v. Duricka 97 A.2d 825 (Penn. 1953). [56] Watson v. Kenlick Coal Co., 498 F.2d 1183 (6th Cir. 1974); Croley v. Round Mountain Coal Co., 374 S.W.2d 852 (Ky. 1964); Commonwealth v. Fitzmartin, 102 A.2d 893 (Pa. 1954). [57] Smith v. Moore, 474 P.2d 794 (Colo. 1970); State v. Talton, 35 S.E.2d ......
-
CHAPTER 13 TITLE EXAMINATION OF MINERAL INTERESTS IN FEE LANDS
...mineral lessee. [143] See, e.g., Cosden Oil & Gas Co. v. Hickman, 114 Okla. 86, 243 P. 226 (1925); Croley v. Round Mt. Coal Co., 374 S.W.2d 852 (Ky. App. 1964). For a more extensive discussion of the subject, see Healy, supra note 83; Deering, Multiple Use Problems of Operators Both on and ......