Lehigh Zinc Iron Co v. Bamford
Citation | 14 S.Ct. 219,150 U.S. 665,37 L.Ed. 1215 |
Decision Date | 18 December 1893 |
Docket Number | No. 8,8 |
Parties | LEHIGH ZINC & IRON CO., Limited, v. BAMFORD et al |
Court | United 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:
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-
Harvey Coal & Coke Co v. Dillon
...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
..."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
...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
...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......