Hurley v. West Kentucky Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1943 |
| Citation | 294 Ky. 96 |
| Parties | Hurley et al. v. West Kentucky Coal Co. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
5. Mines and Minerals. — Where granting clause in deed read "All the coal mineral and mining rights" and habendum clause read "To have and to hold said coal mineral and mining rights," without punctuation between "coal" and "mineral" all minerals passed under deed as against contention that the word "coal" was a descriptive adjective qualifying the noun "mineral."
6. Mines and Minerals. — Under articles of incorporation confining nature of corporation's business to buying, selling, leasing, and operating coal lands, and holding, working, and operating coal mines, corporation was authorized to acquire fee simple title to land underlaid with coal or to purchase all the minerals thereunder, including coal, although it might be without power to conduct mining operations for minerals other than coal.
Appeal from Union Circuit Court.
Lee Gibson and G.E. Jones for appellants.
King & Flournoy for appellee.
Before Marlin L. Blackwell, Judge.
Affirming.
Oliver Hurley and Ollie Hurley, his wife, brought an action in the Union circuit court against West Kentucky Coal Company to quiet the title to 109 acres of land.
Oliver Hurley traces his title back to George O. Daniel who at one time owned both the surface and the minerals. On November 1, 1904, Daniel and wife executed and delivered to the Tradewater Coal Company a deed by which they conveyed to the company certain mineral rights. The Tradewater Coal Company conveyed its interest in the land to the West Kentucky Coal Company. In the petition it is alleged that the West Kentucky Coal Company is wrongfully claiming all the minerals in and under the land, whereas it owns only the coal. In an amended petition it is alleged that under the conveyance made by George O. Daniel and wife to the Tradewater Coal Company no part of the oil or gas or other mineral except coal was conveyed, and it is further alleged that the Tradewater Coal Company, by virtue of its articles of incorporation, only had authority to conduct the business of buying, selling, leasing and operating coal mines and properties and did not have the right or power under its articles of incorporation to purchase the oil, gas or other minerals upon and under the land. Copies of the deed to appellant, the deed from Daniel and wife to the Tradewater Coal Company, and of the articles of incorporation of the Tradewater Coal Company were filed with and made a part of the petition as amended. A demurrer to the petition as amended was sustained, the plaintiff declined to plead further, and judgment was rendered dismissing the action. From that judgment the plaintiffs have appealed.
The effect of the court's ruling was to adjudge that the deed from George O. Daniel to the Tradewater Coal Company conveyed to it all minerals under the tract of land in question, including gas and oil rights. The granting clause in the deed from Daniel to the Tradewater Coal Company reads: "All the coal mineral and mining rights together with the right to mine and remove same lying upon or under the said land." The habendum clause reads as follows: "To have and to hold said coal mineral and mining rights together with the right to mine and remove same." It will be noted that no punctuation mark appears in either excerpt from the Daniel deed. It is appellants' contention that the word "coal" as used in the deed is a descriptive adjective qualifying the noun "mineral," while appellee insists that the proper meaning is "coal, mineral and mining rights." If appellee's theory is correct then all minerals,...
To continue reading
Request your trial