Perry Coal Co. v. Richmond
| Decision Date | 19 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 23378.,23378. |
| Citation | 362 Ill. 487,200 N.E. 329 |
| Parties | PERRY COAL CO. et al. v. RICHMOND et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Interpleader proceeding by the Perry Coal Company against M. J. Richmond, Ella Richmond, and others. From a decree against respondents Richmond, they appeal.
Cause transferred to the Appellate Court.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Perry County; D. H. Mudge, Judge.
Farmer, Klingel & Baltz, of Belleville, for appellants.
M. C. Young, of St. Louis, Mo., and J. Fred Gilster, of Chester, for appellees.
On September 18, 1901, Robert Blair and his wife, Mary A. Blair, by quitclaim deed of that date conveyed to the Coulterville Home Mining Company all interst in the coal and salt underlying the surface of the real estate therein described. The consideration for the deed was $1 and a royalty of 1 1/2 cents per ton on all coal to be mined from premises, and 5 per cent. of all salt produced; the royalty being reserved to ‘the said grantors, their heirs or assigns.’ The coal and salt thus conveyed passed by various mesne conveyances to the appellee Perry Coal Company, who filed a bill of interpleader in the circuit court of Perry county for the purpose of determining the proper person or persons to receive certain royalties in its hands amounting to $227.16. These royalties were claimed on the one hand by the heirs and next of kin of Mary A. Blair and Robert Blair, and on the other hand by appellants, M. J. Richmond and Ella Richmond, purchasers of the lands in question at a partition sale, subsequent to the death of the original grantors. The owners of the coal under the quitclaim deed were not parties to the partition suit. The trial court entered a decree finding that the appellants had no interest in the fund, and the appeal is taken directly to this court.
No one disputes the title of the Perry Coal Company to the coal and salt under the land involved nor questions its right to conduct mining operations, subject only to the payment of royalties. We have no jurisdiction of a direct appeal unless a freehold is involved, and, in order to involve a freehold, it must follow from our decision that one party gains, and the other loses, a freehold estate, or the title to it be so put in issue that the outcome of the case requires a decision as to the title to the freehold. Burroughs v. Kotz, 226 Ill. 40, 80 N.E. 728.
The cause will be transferred to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District.
Cause transferred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry Coal Co. v. Richmond
...as administrator of the estate of Ella Richmond, deceased, and Harold T. Richmond appeal. Affirmed. Transferred from Supreme Court, 362 Ill. 487, 200 N.E. 329. Farmer, Klingel & Baltz, of Belleville, for appellants.M. C. Young, of St. Louis, Mo., and J. Fred Gilster, of Chester, for appelle......
-
Heuer v. Heuer (In re Heuer's Estate)
...the other lose a freehold as a necessary result of the order appealed from. Miller v. Rich, 231 Ill. 416, 83 N.E. 187;Perry Coal Co. v. Richmond, 362 Ill. 487, 200 N.E. 329. The question of a freehold was involved in the former decree entered on July 22, 1947, but the same was not properly ......