Sheffield Coal & Iron Co. v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1913
• Citation: 185 Ala. 50,64 So. 67
• Parties: SHEFFIELD COAL & IRON CO. v. ALABAMA FUEL & IRON CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

64 So. 67

185 Ala. 50

SHEFFIELD COAL & IRON CO. v. ALABAMA FUEL & IRON CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 27, 1913

Appeal from Chancery Court, Franklin County; W.H. Simpson Chancellor.

Partition by the Alabama Fuel & Iron Company against the Sheffield Coal & Iron Company. From a decree ordering a sale of the property, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Joseph H. Nathan, of Sheffield, for appellant.

Travis Williams, of Russellville, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

The appellant is the owner of an undivided one-third interest in the 220 acres described in the bill; and the appellee is the owner of an undivided two-thirds interest in said lands. The appellee filed this bill, seeking a sale of the lands for division upon the ground that the lands could not be fairly and equitably partitioned in kind in proportions to which each is entitled. The chancellor awarded the relief sought and ordered the sale. The single matter argued here is the pure question of fact whether, as averred, the lands could not be fairly and equitably partitioned. Every element of the evidence on the issue has been carefully considered in the light and with the aid of discussions submitted by the respective solicitors. Our conclusion accords with that prevailing with the chancellor. It appears from the evidence that mineral underlies a part (small, according to definite indications found in the "test pits") of the lands that this ore-bearing portion is of irregular shape; that it cuts across a quarter call, 160 acres of the land; that some of said tests indicate rich and some lean ore deposits; that the value of the land for its mineral deposits exceeds its value for agricultural purposes; that a problematic factor is present in the natural uncertainty attending the quantity and quality of the ore in the land, as well as the difference in the probable cost of extracting the ore from places where the overburden is great or small; and that the larger non-mineral acreage probably contributes to the enhancement of the value of that portion in which tests disclose mineral deposits. Furthermore it is entirely reasonable to take account, in the premises, of the suggested factor which may be denominated as respects prospective values of undeveloped mineral for the purposes of sale, speculative values. The notion is based upon indications brought to view by tests, and the further fact, of which this evidence speaks, that no one can...