Gates v. Steckel

• Decision Date: 11 December 1913
• Citation: 176 Mo. App. 168,161 S.W. 1185
• Parties: GATES et al. v. STECKEL et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

161 S.W. 1185

176 Mo. App. 168

GATES et al. v. STECKEL et al.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 11, 1913.

Rehearing Denied January 6, 1914.

1. MINES AND MINERALS (§ 83)—LICENSES— REVOCATION.

While licensees under a mining license acquired no estate or interest in the land, mines, or minerals, and had no possession sufficient to enable them to maintain any possessory action, yet they had substantial rights which the law would protect, and their right to mine could not be revoked at will or arbitrarily, in the absence of some substantial violation of the terms and conditions imposed on them by the license.

2. MINES AND MINERALS (§ 84)—LICENSES— REVOCATION.

The licensees under a license to mine on certain lands which authorized the licensors to forfeit the license for failing to do continuous mining, or to pay the royalties when due, or for assigning an interest in the license without the licensors' consent, owed the licensors $4.30 as royalty, which they offered to pay, though they did not then have the money present, but were assured that they could pay it at any convenient time. The licensees made an arrangement with two persons to carry on the mining operations, not amounting to sale or assignment of the license or interest therein, but rather to a contract of employment for a percentage of the mineral ores produced. The licensees failed to do continuous mining, but though the licensors were aware of this fact, they made no complaint until after active mining operations had been resumed. They then declared a forfeiture, and immediately granted a new license to the other parties at a larger royalty. Held, that there was no such violation of the terms or conditions of the license as warranted a forfeiture, and a court of equity would set a forfeiture aside.

3. MINES AND MINERALS (§ 84)—LICENSES— REVOCATION.

Under a mining license by which the licensors had a right to forfeit the license for a failure to do continuous mining, where the licensees failed to do continuous mining, but the licensors, although aware of this fact, made no complaint until at least a week after the resumption of active mining operations, they could not then declare a forfeiture for the past default.

Error to Circuit Court, Jasper County; Joseph D. Perkins, Judge.

Action by Hattie Gates and others against Phillip Steckel and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

R. A. Mooneyham, of Carthage, for plaintiffs in error. A. G. Young, of Webb City, for defendants in error.

STURGIS, J.

In this equitable proceeding the trial court, after hearing all the evidence, set aside a forfeiture of a mining license made by the defendants, Hough and wife, to the plaintiff Hattie Gates and her associates. Hough and wife, as owners of the land, granted to plaintiffs a license to mine thereon for a term of five years from October 12, 1911, and declared the same forfeited on December 7, 1911, and thereby terminated the right of said licensees to further mine on said land. The defendant licensors sought in the trial court to justify their action in this respect, on the grounds that plaintiffs had violated the terms and conditions of their mining license in failing to do continuous mining, in failing to pay the royalties when due, and in assigning an interest in such license without the consent of the licensors. Without setting out the terms and conditions of the mining license in question, it is sufficient to say that the same contained provisions of this character, and also a provision that any failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the license in good faith shall end and determine the same, and the first parties may enter upon said land without proceedings at law. The trial court, after hearing all the evidence, found that the plaintiff licensees had not violated any of the terms or conditions of the mining license in such manner as to warrant the forfeiture declared by the defendant landowners. The questions raised are largely questions of fact and, after reading the evidence, we find ourselves in accord with the result reached by the trial court.

While plaintiffs were mere licensees and acquired no estate or interest in the land, mines, or mineral, and had no possession sufficient to enable them to maintain any possessory action (Joplin Supply Co. v. West, 149 Mo. App. 78, 93, 130 S. W. 156), and cases there cited, yet their right to mine on this...