Kentucky Coal Lands Co. v. Mineral Development Co.
| Decision Date | 11 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | 3883. |
| Citation | 295 F. 255 |
| Parties | KENTUCKY COAL LANDS CO. v. MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
W. R Middleton, of Detroit, Mich. (Cleon K. Calvert, of Pineville Ky., Clifford B. Longley, of Detroit, Mich., and J. C. Jones of Frankfort, Ky., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
J. F Bullitt, of Philadelphia, Pa., and C. M. Harbison, of Lexington, Ky. (Dishman & Tinsley, of Barbourville, Ky., Worthington, Browning & Reed, of Maysville, Ky., and Wilson & Harbison, of Lexington, Ky., on the brief), for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error brought an action in the district court to recover damages from the Mineral Development Company for cutting and removing standing trees from the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's title to the land from which these trees were cut and removed was involved in a former litigation between these parties and adjudged in plaintiff's favor. That judgment was affirmed by this court (259 F. 118, 170 C.C.A. 186), and an application for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court (250 U.S. 641, 39 Sup.Ct. 492, 63 L.Ed. 1185).
On January 16, 1903, the Kentucky Coal Lands Company conveyed this standing timber to John W. Tuggle, which deed of conveyance granted to Tuggle six years from January 23, 1901, to cut and remove the same. It was further provided in this deed of conveyance that, 'if all or any of the trees and stumps hereby granted to the party of the second part be not cut and removed from the land of the party of the first part within the six years next succeeding January 25, 1901, all right, title, and interest therein shall immediately upon the expiration of said period revert to and revest in the party of the first part. ' On April 27, 1906, the following paper writing, designated in briefs and argument of counsel as the 'Tuggle Extension,' was executed and delivered by A. K. Cook, purporting to be the agent of the Kentucky Coal Lands Company:
Before the execution and delivery of this paper writing, purporting to extend the time in which the timber could be cut and removed, John W. Tuggle had transferred and assigned all his right, title, and interest therein to the Tuggle Land & Timber Company, a company organized by him and for his purposes, and of which he owned practically all the stock, except a number of qualifying shares. Shortly after the Tuggle extension was executed and delivered to him, the Tuggle Land & Timber Company reconveyed its interests to John W. Tuggle.
It is insisted upon behalf of the defendant that, the Kentucky Coal Lands Company having conveyed all its right, title and interest in this standing timber to John W. Tuggle, except the reversion of the title thereto, in event it was not cut and removed within the time limit, and having extended to him the time in which he would be permitted to cut and remove this timber until February 5, 1910, it was not the owner of the timber, nor did it have any right, title, or interest therein, in 1909, when the timber was cut and removed by these defendants.
As a further defense it is asserted upon behalf of the defendant that the question of the title to this timber was conclusively settled in a suit brought by the Tuggle Land & Timber Company, assignee of John W. Tuggle, against the Mineral Development Company in 1904, which was decided in 1907 in favor of the Mineral Development Company; that the appellee was a party to that suit by representation and is bound by the decree therein.
A written waiver of jury was filed, and the cause submitted to the District Court upon the pleadings and the evidence without the intervention of a jury. That court found in favor of the defendant, and entered a judgment dismissing the amended petition at the cost of the plaintiff.
Before KNAPPEN, DENISON, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.
DONAHUE Circuit Judge (after stating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonebrake v. McNeill, 43790
...C.A.10th, 70 F.2d 811, 813 (1934), cert. denied 293 U.S. 573, 55 S.Ct. 84, 79 L.Ed. 671 (1934); Kentucky Coal Lands Co. v. Mineral Development Company, C.A.6th, 295 F. 255, 257 (1924); Hamilton et al. v. City of Jackson, 157 Miss. 284, 292, 127 So. 302 (1930); Copenhaver v. Pendleton, 155 V......
-
Austin v. Calvert
...to the estate in the hands of the reversioner. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Kentucky Coal Lands Co. v. Mineral Development Co., 295 F. 255, in construing these statutes, upon the authority of Nutter v. Russell, 3 Metc. 163, held that every conceivable interes......
-
Western Battery & Supply Co. v. Hazelett Stor. Battery Co.
...to be true in the instant case; likewise the case in which Webster is plaintiff, hereinafter discussed. In Kentucky Coal Lands Co. v. Mineral Development Co. (C. C. A.) 295 F. 255, the court held that where a party was the owner of all the stock in a corporation except qualifying shares for......