Stoddard v. Sheridan Adams Royalty Syndicate

• Decision Date: 20 November 1916
• Docket Number: No. 1875.,1875.
• Citation: 189 S.W. 634
• Parties: STODDARD et al. v. SHERIDAN ADAMS ROYALTY SYNDICATE et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

189 S.W. 634

STODDARD et al. v. SHERIDAN ADAMS ROYALTY SYNDICATE et al.

No. 1875.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 20, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; J. D. Perkins, Judge.

Suit by C. B. Stoddard and others against the Sheridan Adams Royalty Syndicate and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

A. W. Thurman, of Joplin, for appellants. Owen & Davis and H. S. Miller, all of Joplin, for respondents.

STURGIS, J.

The object of this suit is to set aside and declare void a forfeiture of, and to reinstate, a mining lease on certain lands in Jasper county, and also to declare void a second mining lease on the same as inconsistent with plaintiff's rights. The court found for plaintiffs, and defendant landowner, the Sheridan Adams Royalty Syndicate, has appealed. This syndicate is referred to as the defendant. The lease in question provides for mining the land continuously in good faith, for adequately draining said land with pumps, and contains this condition:

"The second party shall be required to erect, maintain, and operate on said land, at least one modern mining plant and mill of a capacity of at least 100 tons for each ten-hour shift."

The defendant, as owner of this land, declared a forfeiture of this mining lease for failure to comply with these conditions. The plaintiff Stoddard is the lessee under this lease, and the other plaintiffs and defendants are sublessees claiming under him. When we speak of plaintiff, we mean Stoddard, the lessee. The lease in question was given in 1911, to run for ten years at 10 per cent. royalty, and the forfeiture was declared on February 5, 1916. Some ten days prior thereto the defendant notified plaintiff that in accordance with the terms of the lease it would "declare a forfeiture unless the conditions of the lease relating to the erection and maintenance of a mill on the property shall be complied with forthwith."

On the trial the defendant sought to justify its forfeiture of the lease for failure to do this, and on the further ground that plaintiff and those working and claiming rights under him had failed to mine the land continuously in good faith, claiming that such parties had practically abandoned mining operations on the land for several days prior to the date of forfeiture. The plaintiff claims, and his evidence tends to show, that the forfeiture declared by defendant was not because of any failure of plaintiff and his sublessees to mine the land or to erect and maintain a mill thereon, but in order to obtain for itself the full 20 per cent. royalty paid by plaintiff's sublessees. To substantiate this claim plaintiff showed that defendant, about the time of declaring this forfeiture, induced certain of plaintiff's sublessees, then mining on the land, to accept from it a new lease at 20 per cent. royalty, and to cease to recognize plaintiff as having any rights in the land; in other words, to attorn to defendant and pay to it the entire royalty. The evidence also shows that after the forfeiture the mining operations on the land were carried on by the same parties in the same manner as at and before the forfeiture, except that defendant received 20 per cent. royalty direct from the sublessees instead of 10 per cent. from plaintiff. In explanation of this we should state that the sublessees under plaintiff had agreed to and were paying 20 per cent. royalty on all ores mined, only one-half...