New Charter Coal Co. v. McKee
| Decision Date | 05 June 1963 |
| Citation | 411 Pa. 307,191 A.2d 830 |
| Parties | The NEW CHARTER COAL COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Cecil W. McKEE and Edna McKee, His Wife. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Merritt H. Davis, Clarion, for appellant.
Merle E. Wiser, Sligo, for appellees.
Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, and ROBERTS, JJ.
By virtue of a deed dated June 2, 1903, the appellant, New Charter Coal Company's [New Charter] predecessor in title acquired all the coal to be found under the lands now owned by the appellees [McKees] with a reservation of one vein of coal more precisely described herein.
New Charter sought by means of an action in equity a determination that it is entitled to remove its coal by the open pit or strip method of mining and to restrain the McKees from preventing the removal of its coal by such method. The Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County refused New Charter's prayer and from such decree New Charter now appeals.
McKees' predecessors in title in the 1903 deed conveyed to New Charter's predecessor in title all the coal--with the exception of one vein of coal--under land in Clarion County. The following are the pertinent provisions of the 1903 deed:
'* * * ALL the coal (except that hereinafter reserved) lying or being in or upon all those * * * two pieces or parcels of land situate * * * in the Borough of Sligo, County of Clarion, State of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to-wit: [in the deed there is a metes and bounds description of the two parcels of land].
'Nevertheless excepting and reserving out of the operation of this conveyance to [McKees' predecessors in title], their heirs and assigns, all the vein of coal lying above the limestone and otherwise known as the Lower Kittanning coal vein.
'Also reserving to [McKees' predecessors in title] the right to drill for oil and gas on the premises hereby conveyed.
'Together with the right of ingress, egress and regress into, upon, through, over, along and across the said tract of land for the purpose of examining and searching for and of mining, manufacturing the same and other coal now opened or which may hereafter be acquired on other lands by [New Charter's predecessor in title], his heirs and assigns, and for these purposes to build roads, and drains upon, and under the surface of the land and to erect chutes, tipples, buildings and other structures with the necessary curtilage as may be necessary and proper for the convenient use and work of the mines or works in connection therewith, with the right to deposit dirt or waste of the said mines or works upon the surface convenient thereto.
'And [McKees' predecessors in title] for themselves, their heirs and assigns do hereby remise, release and forever discharge [New Charter's predecessor in title] his heirs and assigns of and from any and all damages to the surface of the said lands and waters therein and thereof and the buildings and improvements now or which hereafter may be erected thereon, which may result to [McKees' predecessors in title], their heirs and assigns, by reason of the digging and removing of all and every particle of said coal.
'To Have and to Hold the said coal and mining rights with the hereditaments and premises thereby granted or mentioned and intended so to be, with the appurtenances unto [New Charter's predecessor in title], his heirs and assigns, to and for the only proper use and behoof of [New Charter's predecessor in title], his heirs and assigns forever.' (Emphasis supplied).
Approximately 99 acres in two tracts of land in Clarion County are involved; the larger tract's area is about 83 acres of which approximately 30 acres are cleared and the smaller tract consists of about 16 acres of wholly unimproved land. Some, at least, of the cleared land on the larger tract is cultivated by a lessee of McKees but there are not, and never were, any buildings on either tract. The coal belonging to New Charter--the Clarion or lower vein--underlies 50 acres of the larger tract (including the cultivated portion thereof) and all of the 16-acre tract. The coal reserved to McKees,--the Lower Kittanning vein-- apparently now is found only under about 10 acres of the 16-acre tract and lies between the Clarion vein and the surface.
New Charter's predecessor in title mined the Clarion coal under both tracts by deep mining methods until about the year 1920. The McKees have recently given a lease to strip mine the Lower Kittanning vein to a third party. The Lower Kittanning coal under the 16-acre tract is strippable by present methods but the Clarion coal under that tract lies too deep for strip mining. However, the Clarion coal under the 83-acre tract is strippable by present methods.
This is certainly not a case of first impression in this Commonwealth. Modern machinery has made strip mining on a large scale possible and it has rendered feasible the removal of coal that could not have been removed by deep mining methods. We can assume that in many cases strip mining is the least costly method of removing coal if we are not rash in assuming that business men will not deliberately choose a more expensive mining method and indulge in litigation to defend or assert their right to strip mine as the many cases that have come before this Court on this subject attest. We entertain no doubt that the machinery used in strip mining will continue to improve and that it will be possible in the future to delve ever deeper under the surface for coal than is now possible using this method.
Because strip mining wreaks havoc on the land it properly and understandably evokes an emotional response from conservationists and nature-lovers. It evokes an even deeper emotional response from those who have in the past sold their mineral rights in the expectation that the damage to the surface would be minimal and now realize that, if the owner is allowed to strip mine, the surface will be utterly destroyed for many years. However, the law of contract does not and cannot take heed of emotions; otherwise, the emotions of the judge would ever be the deciding factor and chaos the result. The law demands of every man who bargains with another that he should do so only after due reflection of the possible consequences of his bargain and if he misjudges the consequences that could have been expected by a reasonably intelligent man, he cannot rely on the law to remedy his fecklessness. Absent some legally recognized infringement of the law of contract by one party, the law will not reform a written contract so as to make a contract for the parties that they did not make between themselves and certainly never to rescue a party who did not reasonably foresee the consequences of his bargain.
If a person grants a portion of his property to another and the grant is susceptible of more than one interpretation, the words of the grant are to be construed most strongly against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobs v. Cng Transmission Corp.
...execution in an effort to clarify the meaning the parties sought to express by the language they chose)(citing New Charter Coal Co. v. McKee, 411 Pa. 307, 191 A.2d 830 (1963)). Only when this inquiry fails to clarify the ambiguity should the court resort to the rule of construction interpre......
-
CHAPTER 3 PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF EXAMINING TITLE, PREPARING WORKSHEETS, CHAINS OF TITLE, AND DOCUMENT INTERPRETATION
...Shale Energy II, LLC. v. Laborde Properties, L.P., 551 S.W.3d 148, 150 (Tex. 2018).[28] Id.[29] See, e.g., New Charter Coal Co. v. McKee, 191 A.2d 830, 833 (Pa. 1963), Patterson v. Wilcox, 358 P.2d 88, 91 (Utah 1961) (noting exception where the sophistication of the parties is also a factor......