Lehigh Zinc Iron Co v. Bamford

Citation14 S.Ct. 219,150 U.S. 665,37 L.Ed. 1215
Decision Date18 December 1893
Docket NumberNo. 8,8
PartiesLEHIGH ZINC & IRON CO., Limited, v. BAMFORD et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

At law. Action by Charles Bamford and Edwin Bamford against the Lehigh Zine & Iron Company to recover rents. There was verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and a motion for a new trial was denied. 33 Fed. 677. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Statement by Mr. Justice HARLAN:

This action was brought to recover certain rents alleged to be due under a written lease of May 2, 1883, between Charles and Edwin Bamford, of England, and the Lehigh Zinc & Iron Company, Limited, of Pennsylvania. The company acquired, by the terms of the agreement, the exclusive right for 10 years to mine, dig, raise, crush, concentrate, roast, use, and remove, sell, and dispose of all metals or minerals found or to be found upon the leased premises.

The lease contained, among other provisions, the following:

'Second. That the party of the second part, for and in consideration of the rights and privileges thus granted, hereto covenant and agree to pay to the said parties of the first part the following rents, profits, and tonnage due, to wit: Upon all concentrated ores removed from or used upon the premises, the same having been obtained by crushing, sizing, washing, jigging, or separating ores mined upon said premises, a royalty of one dollar and fifty cents per ton of two thousand pounds, (2,000 lbs.;) upon all concentrated ores which may be obtained by crushing, sizing, washing, jigging, or separating ores or minerals hauled and brought to the said premises from other estates and mines, a royalty for the use of the soil, buildings, machinery, and fixtures hereby leased shall be paid to the parties of the first part as follows, viz. during two days of each week a royalty of fifty cents per ton of two thousand pounds of such ore so concentrated when removed from or used upon the premises aforesaid, and during the remaining five days of each week a royalty of one dollar for each ton of two thousand pounds so concentrated when removed from the premises.

'Third. Upon all ores mined upon and removed from the premises, other than those above mentioned, a royalty of one dollar and fifty cents a ton shall be paid to the parties of the first part; and it is also covenanted and agreed that the said party of the second part shall put all the engines, boilers, and machinery which it shall use in good and substantial repair, and keep and leave them in the same good order, ordinary wear and tear excepted.'

'Fifth. That the party of the second part shall pay or cause to be paid to the parties of the first part or their duly-authorized agent or attorney at New York city, on the twentieth day of January, April, July, and October of each year, all sums of money found to be due by said party of the second part for ores removed during the three full calendar months next preceding, and shall accompany each remittance with a detailed statement of weights and amounts so accruing, specifying also whence such ores were originally obtained.

'Sixth. In case the royalty due and payable to the parties of the first part according to the above rates shall in any year fall below the sum of one thousand dollars, then the party of the second part shall pay to the parties of the first part such additional sum of money as shall make the royalty for such year amount to the sum of one thousand dollars, which sum shall be held and taken to be the royalty of that year: provided, always, that if sufficient ores cannot be found to yield said minimum payment, and said party of the second part shall in consequence thereof fail to pay said minimum sum of one thousand dollars yearly, then said party of the second part shall, if required by said parties of the first part, relinquish this lease, and the privileges hereby granted, and the same shall cease thereupon.'

The company acquired by the agreement the exclusive right to purchase the leased estate, mining rights, etc., at the price of $125,000, payable according to certain named terms.

The complaint alleged that the company entered upon the leased premises, and dug and carried away ores, but only in such quantities that at the agreed rates the royalties fell below $1,000 in each of the years ending May 2, 1884, and May 2, 1885. Judgment was asked for $1,000 for each of those years, less the sum of $59.49, leaving a balance of $1,940.51, with interest from May 2, 1884, on $940.51, and from May 2, 1885, on $1,000.

The company denied all indebtedness to the plaintiffs, and asserted a counterclaim for the sum of $8,000. The answer alleged that Charles Bamford, for himself and Edwin Bamford, in order to induce the company to lease the property, represented the mine to be a valuable ore-producing one; that, properly worked, it would yield, and had yielded, a large amount of zinc...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • Harvey Coal & Coke Co v. Dillon
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1905
    ...certain time with the exclusive right to mine, the grantee paying a rent in ore, was held to be a lease in Lehigh Zinc Co. v. Bamford, 150 U. S. 665, 14 Sup. Ct. 219, 37 L. Ed. 1215. In Blue-stone Coal Co. v. Bell, 38 W. Va. 297, a right to mine coal was held to be a lease. The court, in Ge......
  • State v. Snyder
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 15, 1923
    ..."royalty" since royalties are, in fact, rentals. (Atty. Gen. v. Mercer, 8 App. Cas. (Eng.) 767; U. S. v. Gratiot supra; Lehigh etc. Co. v. Bamfortd, 150 U.S. 665; Reynolds v. Hanna, 55 F. 800; Kissick Bolton, 134 Ia. 650; Meek v. Co. 124 S.W. 1089; 78 Am. & Eng. L. 2nd Ed., 782.) "Royalty" ......
  • Sproul v. Gilbert
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1961
    ...limited to the severance of a part of the land itself the grantee's interest is described as a lease. Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. Bamford, 1893, 150 U.S. 665, 14 S.Ct. 219, 37 L.Ed. 1215; Nelson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 8 Cir., 1917, 240 F. 285; Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Martin, 3......
  • Gagne v. Bertran
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1954
    ...Producer Co., 140 Wash. 482, 249 P. 984, 986-987; Palmer v. Goldberg, 128 Wis. 103, 111, 107 N.W. 478; Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. Bamford, 150 U.S. 665, 673, 14 S.Ct. 219, 37 L.Ed. 1215; Stein v. Treger, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 400, 182 F.2d 696, 699; see also, Edwards v. Sergi, 137 Cal.App. 369, 37......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT