Dawson v. Meike

• Decision Date: 06 April 1973
• Docket Number: Nos. 4155,4156,s. 4155
• Citation: 508 P.2d 15
• Parties: Jennette A. DAWSON et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. Harold MEIKE, a/k/a Harold L. Meike, and Emil Meike, a/k/a Emil E. Meike, Appellees (Defendants below). Harold MEIKE, Appellant (Defendant below), Emil Meike (Defendant below), v. Jennette DAWSON et al., Appellees (Plaintiffs below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 15

508 P.2d 15

Jennette A. DAWSON et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. Harold MEIKE, a/k/a Harold L. Meike, and Emil Meike, a/k/a Emil E. Meike, Appellees (Defendants below).

Harold MEIKE, Appellant (Defendant below), Emil Meike (Defendant below), v. Jennette DAWSON et al., Appellees (Plaintiffs below).

Nos. 4155, 4156.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 6, 1973.

Charles R. Spratt, Buffalo, for appellants in Case 4155 and appellees in Case 4156.

William J. Kirven and Robert A. Hill, Buffalo, for appellees in Case 4155 and appellant in Case 4156.

Before PARKER, C. J., and McEWAN, GUTHRIE and McINTYRE, JJ.

Mr. Chief Justice PARKER delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiffs brought an action against defendants, seeking a share of mineral lease rentals on approximately 7,660 acres of land previously deeded to defendants with certain reservations. The land, formerly belonging to Jennette and Earl A. Dawson, was in 1950 transferred by agreement and warranty deed to defendants. ¹ After both plaintiffs and defendants had completed their pleadings and had moved for summary judgment, the matter was set for hearing, whereupon the plaintiffs' motion was denied but defendant-Harold Meike's was granted ² the court finding, inter alia:

'* * * plaintiffs' complaint is founded on the premise that plaintiffs are entitled to a share of the rental received by the defendants from a uranium lease entered into by defendants, and plaintiffs claim that uranium is kindred to oil and gas. The Court finds that uranium is not a mineral which is kindred to oil and gas but does find incidentally that coal is kindred to oil and gas. The Court further finds that plaintiffs are now barred by the statute of limitations from making any claim of ownership to uranium since it is not kindred to oil and gas and their rights to claim any other and different minerals are barred under Sections 1-17 and 34-36, W.S.1957.'

From that judgment both plaintiffs and defendant-Harold Meike appealed, plaintiffs contending error as a matter of law that they were held not to be entitled to receive one-half of the bonus and rentals from a mineral lease. Defendant-Harold Meike, in addition to countering this argument, insists that the trial court improperly enlarged the issue before it by adding the extraneous conclusion of law that coal is kindred to oil and gas.

The instruments by which defendants acquired title to the land in issue here were an agreement for deed dated February 16, 1950, which contained the following reference to mineral acreage:

'That it is understood that an examination of the records will be made and the first parties and the second parties will divide the oil rights in and under said lands in equal shares. That is to say, that the first parties will retain all of the oil rights on one-half (1/2) of the lands and the second parties will receive all of the oil rights on the other one-half (1/2). It is anticipated that as soon as the mineral acreage is determined the parties will agree upon a physical division of the lands which is impossible at this time for the reason that they do not now know just which lands they own the minerals under and upon which lands the mineral rights have been retained by the government.'

and a warranty deed of the same date, filed of record September 30, 1950, which expressed the reservation to plaintiffs as follows:

'The grantors reserve unto themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns an undivided one half of all of the oil, gas and kindred minerals in and under said lands, together with the right to receive one half of all moneys received from mineral leases, whether as rental, bonus or payments for deferred drilling. But it is expressly understood and agreed that the grantees herein, their heirs, executors and successors in title to said lands shall have the exclusive right to lease said lands for oil and gas upon such terms and to any individual or company of their selection, accounting to the grantors or their heirs or assigns for their share of all proceeds received from or on account of such leases.'

The moneys in which plaintiffs in this action sought to share emanated from a ten-year lease of defendants to Karl W. Bergner on the land in issue, granting 'the exclusive right and privilege to explore for, develop, mine (by open pit, underground, strip mining, solution mining or any other method) extract, mill, store, remove and market therefrom all minerals, metals, ores and materials of whatsoever nature or sort (hereinafter called 'Leased Substances') with the exception of coal, oil shale, bentonite, oil and gas, sand and gravel, or rock crushed for aggregate, and of using so much of the surface of said land as may be necessary, useful or convenient for the full enjoyment of all rights herein granted.' A rider on the lease referred specifically to uranium.

Plaintiffs in their brief here say that they did not in the trial court seek an interpretation of the words 'kindred minerals' and in oral argument here specifically disclaimed any reliance on those words. By reason of this disclaimer and renunciation, the present opinion omits any discussion of the 'kindred' argument mentioned in the trial court's findings except to say that if any such...