Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Barter
Decision Date | 22 November 1928 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 101 |
Citation | 118 So. 749,218 Ala. 369 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | REPUBLIC IRON & STEEL CO. v. BARTER. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge.
Action by Elizabeth Barter against the Republic Iron & Steel Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326 Affirmed.
Percy Benners & Burr, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Drennen & Burns, of Birmingham, for appellee.
This is an action of trespass on the case by the appellee against appellant, to recover damages to her estate occasioned by subsidence of the surface resulting from destroying the subjacent supports in conducting mining operations.
The evidence is without dispute, except as to the quantum of the damage suffered, and for the purpose now in hand may be stated to be: That the plaintiff is the owner of the surface and the defendant is the owner of the mineral rights thereunder, with the right to mine and remove the mineral, to use necessary water and timber for mining purposes and for building in connection therewith, and to construct and maintain railroads and tram roads necessary for the mining and transportation of such minerals. The defendant in the past opened a mine under the plaintiff's property, and had mined the coal therefrom, leaving pillars and stumps sufficient for subjacent support of the surface, but for several years past had not operated the mine.
On September 29, 1919, the defendant leased to one W.S Blackwell "the right to the extent of the Company's interest therein to mine the Pratt coal which is left in pillars and stumps in the workings and outcrop barriers" on the property in question and providing in the lease:
That the "lessee is to secure from all surface owners written releases relieving the Company from damage claims as a result of mining operation breaking the surface, or cutting of timber, etc., on any land he undermines, such releases to be turned over to the Company." That
The purpose of the lease, as it states on its face, "is to have the lessee to furnish the domestic coal requirements of the Company's employees at Republic," and (other than domestic orders) delivered at designated points, "the company agrees to pay the Lessee $2.30 per ton on the Company's tipple weights," and "for all coal mined and delivered as domestic coal or otherwise, the Lessee agrees to pay the Company a royalty of ten (10¢) cents per ton, such royalty sums to be deducted from balance due and payable to Lessee."
The evidence further shows that Blackwell, operating under this lease, confined his operation to robbing the pillars. Blackwell testified:
The subsidence of the surface
Appellant's contention on the trial and now is that, on the case as presented, Blackwell, the lessee, and not the lessor, is liable for the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
It may be conceded, for the purpose in hand, that as a general rule, where the lease contemplates ordinary mining operations, the lessee and not the lessor is liable for damages resulting from subsidence. Such is the effect of a dictum in Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Black, 215 Ala. 170, 110 So. 151, following a like holding, also dictum, in Kistler v. Thompson, 158 Pa. 139, 27 A. 874; 68 L.R.A. note 695; and as was held in Offerman v. Starr, 2 Pa. 394, 44 Am.Dec. 211.
Yet where, as here, the lease contemplates and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Zeidler, 6 Div. 935
... ... 371, 136 So. 787; ... Needham v. Birmingham Trussville Iron Co., 229 Ala ... 452, 157 So. 849; Thompson on Negligence, § 1030; ... committing the doing of the act to a contractor ... Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Barter, 218 Ala. 369, ... 118 So. 749. The defendant ... ...
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Emens
... ... 6 ... copper wires insulated and inclosed in a flexible steel ... There ... was expert testimony tending to show that the ... O. W., v. Feltman, 226 ... Ala. 390, 147 So. 396; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v ... Barter, 218 Ala. 369, 118 So. 749; 29 A. L. R ... ...
-
Fulton County v. Woodside, s. 23932
...authority, whether such third person be an agent or an independent contractor.' (Emphasis supplied). See also Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Barter, 218 Ala. 369, 118 So. 749. In Kelley v. Falangus, 63 Wash.2d 581, 388 P.2d 223 the court held that owners of supporting land could not, by deleg......
-
Connell v. Call-a-Cab, Inc.
...51 So. 746, 138 Am. St. Rep. 77 [(1910)]; 39 Cyc. 1339; Annotation 29 A.L.R. 737, et seq.; 23 A.L.R. 985, et seq.; Republic, etc. v. Barter, 218 Ala. 369, 118 So. 749 [(1928)]. "In this case, if defendant was engaged to transport a party of students on a trip, the law imposed a duty on it t......