Kodak Coal Co. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 23 September 1960 |
| Citation | 338 S.W.2d 699 |
| Parties | KODAK COAL COMPANY and Vicco Coal Corporation, Inc., Appellants, v. John D. SMITH and Shell Smith, Appellees. VICCO COAL CORPORATION, Inc., Appellant, v. John D. SMITH and Shell Smith, Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Clark Pratt, Hindman, for appellants.
Cordell H. Martin, Hindman, Claude P. Stephens, Prestonsburg, D. G. Boleyn, Hazard, for appellees.
CLAY, Commissioner.
These consolidated actions involve the right of appellant coal companies to engage in the 'auger' method of mining upon lands in which they have title to coal by virtue of a mineral deed. Appellees, owners of the surface, sought to enjoin appellants from engaging in this particular mining activity and appellants likewise sought injunctive relief. The Chancellor enjoined appellants from further coal mining by the auger method.
The language of the mineral deed involved in these actions is substantially identical with that contained in the deeds considered in the cases of Buchanan v. Watson, Ky., 290 S.W.2d 40, and Blue Diamond Coal Company v. Neace, Ky., 337 S.W.2d 725. The basic contentions with respect to the surface rights of the parties, carefully considered in those cases, are presented here. Those cases are determinative of this controversy.
The established law of Kentucky is that under a mineral deed such as we have before us, the grantee, as the owner of the coal, has the right to extract it by the strip or auger method of mining, and if the operation is conducted properly the necessary use or destruction of the surface is within the scope of the rights granted under the deed.
The record shows the very destructive nature of the auger mining process and, like the Chancellor, we are aware that this type of operation is not consistent with the best principles of land conservation. However the question before us involves the legal rights of the parties, and as we have pointed out in the earlier opinions, the preservation of the land is a matter for the legislature.
The Chancellor made several findings of fact which are not controlling because of the superior rights of appellants. For example, it was found that the coal could be mined by other methods and therefore it was not necessary to use the auger method. We said in Blue Diamond Coal Company v. Neace, Ky., 337 S.W.2d 725, 727:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Harding
...trial court concluding that the timber reservation was unduly emphasized in derogation of the language of conveyance. Kodak Mining Co. v. Smith, Ky., 338 S.W.2d 699 (1960). While the timber exception here is particularized, the granting clause of the deed is virtually identical to that foun......
-
Akers v. Baldwin
...of minerals carries with it the right to use the surface for the purpose of removing the minerals." Id. In Kodak Coal Company v. Smith, Ky., 338 S.W.2d 699 (1960), the Buchanan doctrine was unanimously extended. We upheld auger mining under a broad form deed even though the trial court foun......
-
Martin v. Kentucky Oak Min. Co.
...auger mining, in Bevander Coal Co. v. Matney, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 301; Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Neace, Ky., 337 S.W.2d 725; Kodak Coal Co. v. Smith, Ky., 338 S.W.2d 699; Ritchie v. Midland Mining Co., Ky., 347 S.W.2d 548; Wright v. Bethlehem Minerals Co., Ky., 368 S.W.2d 179; Blue Diamond Coal ......
-
Watson v. Kenlick Coal Company, Inc.
...Coal Co., Inc. v. Campbell, 371 S. W.2d 483, 485 (Ky.1963); Ritchie v. Midland Mining Co., 347 S.W.2d 548 (Ky.1961); Kodak Coal Co. v. Smith, 338 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Ky.1960); Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Neace, 337 S.W.2d 725, 728 (Ky.1960); Bevander Coal Co. v. Matney, 320 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Ky. 1......
-
CHAPTER 1 REGULATION OF SURFACE USE BY MINERAL DEVELOPERS
...at 43. [51] Akers, 736 S.W.2d at 302. [52] Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Neace, 337 S.W.2d 725 (Ky. 1960). [53] Kodak Coal Company v. Smith, 338 S.W.2d 699 (Ky. 1960). [54] 1984 Ky. Acts, ch. 28, § 2, effective July 13, 1984 (subsequently repealed). [55] Akers, 736 S.W.2d at 294. [56] Id. at 304......