Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Min. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 40566,EAGLE-CHEROKEE,40566 |
| Citation | 313 P.2d 731,181 Kan. 567 |
| Parties | Edward GEIER and Ethel Geier, Appellees, v. TheCOAL MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a strip coal mining lease specifically provides that the lease shall terminate when all workable, minable, strippable and merchantable coal, which can be practicably and profitably mined and removed by the lessee by strip mining methods, shall have been mined and removed, it is held that a motion for judgment on the pleadings by the plaintiffs was improperly sustained where the answer of the defendant raised the issue whether continued mining of coal was profitable.
2. In a strip coal mining lease such as described in the foregoing paragraph, an additional provision, permitting the lessee at its discretion to terminate the lease at any time by paying $200 per acre for the remaining acreage not mined, is construed by applying familiar rules of construction--more particularly set out in the opinion, to be consistent with other specific provisions terminating the lease when coal can no longer be profitably mined.
3. A motion for judgment on the pleadings invokes the judgment of the trial court on questions of law as applied to the pleaded and conceded facts. It presupposes a lack of issue of fact. Thus, in hearing a motion for judgment on the pleadings which brings into focus the interpretation of a written contract, no evidence is admissible. Under the circumstances presented in the opinion, such motion is equivalent to a demurrer in that it admits the truth of all well-pleaded facts in the pleadings of the opposing party.
4. Where the court is called upon to construe a written instrument, reasonable rather than unreasonable interpretations are favored by the law, and results which vitiate the purpose or reduce its terms to an absurdity should be avoided. The meaning of a contract should always be ascertained by a consideration of all the pertinent provisions and never be determined by a critical analysis of a single or isolated provision.
5. Royalty, as used in a coal mining lease--more particularly set out in the opinion, refers to a payment reserved by the grantor which is payable in direct proportion to the number of tons of coal mined and sold.
6. Interest is not allowable to a party in an action until the damages, if any, are ascertained and the amount becomes liquidated, following G.S.1949, 16-201.
7. A request to state separately findings of fact and conclusions of law is too late when made after the conclusion of the trial, and after a general finding has been announced.
H. Gordon Angwin, Pittsburg, argued the cause, and Ben W. Weir, Pittsburg, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
D. G. Smith, Girard, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order sustaining a motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action for the recovery of money under the terms of a strip coal mining lease on land in Crawford county.
The pertinent portions of the lease material to the issues before this court read as follows:
'Exhibit 'A'
'Lease
'This lease, made and entered into this 22nd day of October, 1951 by and between Edward Geier and Ethel Geier, his wife, of Crawford County, Kansas, parties of the first part and hereinafter referred to as lessors, and The Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kansas, party of the second part and hereinafter referred to as lessee.
'1. Land Leased.
'That for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, and in the further consideration of the sum of One and no/100 ($1.00) Dollar, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the lessor hereby grants and leases unto the lessee, its successors and assigns, for strip coal mining purposes, all of the workable, minable, strippable and merchantable coal that can be practicably and profitably mined and removed by strip mining methods with the mining equipment it now possesses or may acquire prior to the expiration of this Lease, upon and underlying the following described real estate, situated in Crawford County, Kansas, to-wit:
'The East One-half (E 1/2) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Thirty-four (34), Township Twenty-nine (29), Range Twenty-four (24).
'2. Term of Lease.
'It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that subject to all the terms and provisions hereof, the term of this Lease shall be for a period of five (5) years from the date hereof or until all the workable, minable, strippable and merchantable coal underlying the hereinabove described real estate, which can be practicably and profitably mined and removed by lessee by strip mining methods, shall have been mined and removed, whether the aforesaid coal be so stripped or removed before or after five (5) years from the date hereof.
'3. Royalty.
'It is understood and agreed that lessee shall pay lessors, as the entire rent and royalty due under the terms of this Lease, a sum equal to Twenty (20) cents per ton of 2,000 pounds runs of mine for all of the strippable and merchantable coal underlying the above described real estate and actually stripped, mined and removed by the lessee, * * *.
'It is further agreed between the parties hereto that the lessee guarantees to the lessors, as royalty payments, the total sum of Sixteen Thousand and no/100 ($16,000.00) Dollars; provided, however that the lessee may, at its discretion, terminate this Lease at any time, by paying Two Hundred and no/100 ($200.00) Dollars per acre for the remaining land. Railway weights shall be taken as the basis of payment for royalty when coal is loaded and weighed on railroad cars, and when not so loaded and weighed, then fair and accurate scale weights shall be taken as the basis for payment of royalty; provided, that the lessee shall not be required to mine, remove or pay royalty on any dead or merchantable coal unless the said coal is sold by the said lessee.
* * *
* * *
'8. Coal To Be Removed.
'It is further understood and agreed that subject to all the terms and provisions of this Lease, the lessee, in any event, shall only strip and remove such strippable merchantable coal underlying the hereinbefore described real property as can be stripped and removed by lessee with the equipment placed upon the hereinbefore described real property by lessee at a fair and reasonable profit to lessee.' (Emphasis added.)
The appellees, Edward Geier and Ethel Geier, lessors herein, will be referred to in this opinion as plaintiffs as they appeared below, and the appellant, The Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Company, a corporation, lessee herein, will be referred to as defendant.
The plaintiffs filed an amended petition in the lower court wherein they sought a money judgment in the sum of $5,400 as liquidated damages on the ground that the defendant had exercised its discretion to terminate the aforesaid lease on April 1, 1953, with approximately 27 acres of land remaining to be mined, under the provision of the lease calling for the payment of $200 per acre for the remaining land not taken and mined on the date of termination. The plaintiffs further sought interest at 6% from April 1, 1953.
Plaintiffs contend that the defendant by its answer admitted every essential fact contained in the amended petition, and since no issue of fact remained, their motion for judgment on the pleadings was proper.
The defendant by its answer admitted the lease, incorporated in the plaintiffs' amended petition, and alleged that the $16,000 guaranteed royalty had been paid in full and that, in fact, a total sum of $19,819.92 had been paid as royalty. The defendant alleged that the lease was for a five-year period and that it had not terminated the lease by its act or deed under the provision calling for the payment of $200 per acre for the unmined land, and denied that said provision was intended to be in addition to the $16,000 minimum royalty guarantee. The defendant alleged that further coal could not be mined at a fair and reasonable profit, and that for the fifteen months it conducted operations on the lease, said operations resulted in a loss. Defendant stated that the remaining coal was of the same kind and character and could not be mined at a profit, by reason of the inferior quality of the coal, the thinness of the vein, the market conditions, the increased labor and other costs and the depth and character of the overburden overlying said coal. The defendant further alleged that it had fully performed its obligations under the terms and provisions of the lease, and that said lease should be by the court terminated and cancelled and the defendant released and discharged from any further performance, discharged from any further performance,
For affirmative relief the defendant alleged that approximately 27 acres of unmined land was undisturbed and had its full agricultural and farming utility and was of the value of $100 per acre, for which defendant was entitled to a setoff or credit against the damages, if any, accruing to the plaintiffs, in the sum of $2,700.
The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs on the pleadings in the sum of $5,400 with interest at 6% from the 6th day of September, 1956.
The defendant appealed from the foregoing judgment and from all other adverse rulings. All of the rulings adverse to the defendant were specified as error and unless otherwise herein mentioned, resolve into a construction of the mining lease in question. The plaintiffs cross-appealed and specified as error the refusal of the trial court to allow interest at 6% from April 1, 1953, instead of September 6, 1956, as entered by the judgment.
The defendant's position is that the lease imposes upon it the duty to mine only the coal that can be practicably and profitably strip mined and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims' Estate, In re
...477; Edwards v. Solar Oil Corp., 178 Kan. 218, 284 P.2d 589; Barnhouse v. Rowe, 178 Kan. 248, 284 P.2d 618; Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567, 313 P.2d 731; Hill v. Lake, 182 Kan. 127, 318 P.2d The Kansas cases are collected and analyzed in 14 A.L.R.2d 458. The rationale......
-
Shirk's Estate, In re
...of public policy, the inference in favor of the former must be drawn (Craft v. Bent, 8 Kan. 328, 332; Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567, 573, 313 P.2d 731). The factual situation set forth in the amended petition is most unusual, and the legal questions presented are not......
-
Wendler v. City of Great Bend
...White v. Thompson, 181 Kan. 485, 312 P.2d 612; see, also, Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 277 P.2d 641; Geier v. Eagle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567, 313 P.2d 731; and Wahl v. Walsh, 177 Kan. 176, 277 P.2d The defendant contends that the stricken paragraphs of the answer alleged......
-
Weiner v. Wilshire Oil Co. of Tex.
...rather than its illegality. Mosher v. Kansas Cooperative Wheat Marketing Ass'n, 136 Kan. 269, 15 P.2d 421; and Geier v. Engle-Cherokee Coal Mining Co., 181 Kan. 567, 313 P.2d 731.) Prior to a resort to extrinsic evidence, the instrument is to be interpreted from its 'four corners.' That is ......