Weatherly v. American Agr. Chemical Co.
Decision Date | 25 April 1933 |
Citation | 65 S.W.2d 592,16 Tenn.App. 613 |
Parties | WEATHERLY et al. v. AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL CO. |
Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court December 15, 1933.
Appeal from Chancery Court, Maury County; Thos. B. Lytle Chancellor.
Suit by Mrs. Eva Weatherly and others against the American Agricultural Chemical Company, brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, for the construction of a certain lease or mining contract. From a decree construing the lease or mining contract, the defendant appeals.
Decree reversed in accordance with opinion.
Seay Stockell & Edwards, of Nashville (Sullivan & Cromwell, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
J. C. Voorhies, of Columbia, and Pitts, McConnico, Hatcher & Waller, of Nashville, for appellees.
In their bill in this cause, Mrs. Eva Weatherly, Mrs. Sue Curry and her husband, G. T. Curry, the owners of certain lands containing phosphate rock, sought a construction under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (chapter 29 of the Pub. Acts of 1923) of a certain lease or mining contract entered into between the complainants and the defendant on November 21, 1920. The complainants prayed for a declaration by decree (a) that the obligation of the defendant to pay to complainants the sum of $2,500 a year, when it is not carrying on mining operations on said property, does not relieve the defendant of the obligation to mine from said property all the phosphate material of the specified grade existing therein; (b) that the defendant is obligated by the contract with the complainants to mine from said property all the phosphate material of the grade of 72 per cent. bone phosphate of lime, or better, in or under said property, within the time specified in said contract; (c) that the defendant is answerable to complainants in damages for any waste or loss occasioned by improperly mining or removing from said property any phosphate material, or by improperly preparing same for market, or by handling or preparing the same different from or contrary to the methods prevailing in this territory from time to time.
The chancellor sustained the first two of said propositions, and deemed it beyond the scope of the suit to adjudicate the question of breach of contract or right to damages. The defendant appealed.
The defendant corporation was engaged in the business of mining phosphate rock and manufacturing fertilizer. It purchased a tract of several hundred acres of C. D. Loveless, adjoining the land of complainants, on which tract the prospecting had indicated a possible 285,000 tons of phosphate rock of 72 per cent. bone phosphate of lime. It had secured options for leases on complainants' land and three other adjacent tracts known as the John Jamison, the Margaret Jamison, and the Fitzgerald lands. Prospecting indicated a possible 200,000 tons of phosphate rock of 72 per cent. bone phosphate of lime, or better, underlying complainants' land, known as the Weatherly property. After it purchased the Loveless tract, it exercised its option and leased from the complainants their tract. The lease was entered into for a period of twenty years from and after November 21, 1920, "for the purposes and upon the terms" as follows:
The said lease further grants to the second party (the defendant), "certain rights of way across the leased premises for wagon roads, tram roads, or other ways, together with the right to lay and maintain pipes to be placed twelve inches below the surface across the premises described in the lease to lands recently purchased by the defendant from C. D. Loveless, and to establish a pumping station upon said premises to be located near the bridge on the Spring Hill road where it crosses Carter's Creek, and to take from the creeks and waters upon or bordering the said premises such water as it may need for the purpose of operating its plant upon the lands so purchased of C. D. Loveless and to cause said water to flow through said pipe lines."
The lease further granted to the lessee, its successors, and assigns, as an easement, "a right of way to establish and maintain a railroad or tram line across said leased premises as hereafter set out, with the right to lay ties and rails, and to operate over the same engines, cars, and trains."
Said lease further provides:
The defendant expended a very large sum of money in building its washing plant on its Loveless tract, and pumping station and power house on the corner of complainants' property adjacent to Carter's creek, and in laying the pipe line to bring water therefrom to the washing plant. It was an essential purpose, in obtaining leases on the Weatherly property, as well as the Jamison properties, to secure water rights to Carter's creek, which could not be had without leasing these properties, as well as to secure an easement for the purpose of laying pipe lines across the Weatherly property from the pumping station to the washing plant. Thus the aforesaid contract was entered into in order to obtain water rights and other easements and mining privileges.
The defendant mined the phosphate rock on the Loveless property before beginning the mining upon the Weatherly property. It mined from the Loveless property practically all of the phosphate rock thereon of the grade specified, but obtained only about 25 per cent. of the amount of phosphate rock which was estimated to underlie those premises. It did not begin any mining on complainants' property until December, 1927, more than seven years after the beginning of the lease, but it paid to the complainants the sum of $2,500 for each of said years, and, after it began mining operations on complainants' property, it paid to the complainants a royalty of $1 on every ton mined, after deducting therefrom the amount which it had paid to them at the rate of $2,500 a year. The defendant mined the phosphate rock on complainants' property from December, 1927, until May, 1931, when it discontinued such mining operations. Altogether it mined on complainants' property 84,031.58 tons of phosphate rock, for which it paid to them $84,031.58. After discontinuing such operations on complainants' property, the defendant continued paying to them the sum of $2,500 a year, which was accepted by them, and it proposes to continue paying to complainants the sum of $2,500 each year until the end of the term of twenty years provided for in the lease. It has abandoned the whole operation, having lost about $379,000 thereon, and does not intend to mine any more phosphate rock on the complainants' property. It assigns as the cause of the loss and the consequent discontinuance of operation a poor quality in grade of the phosphate rock on both its Loveless tract and the Weatherly tract.
For the complainants it is insisted as follows:
(a) That the contract made November 21, 1920, between the complainants and defendant constituted a purchase by the defendant of all the phosphate material, in, on, or under complainants' said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Overstreet v. Trw Commercial Steering Div.
... ... v. Dozier, 219 Tenn. 45, 407 S.W.2d 150, 154 (1966) (quoting Weatherly v. Am. Agric. Chem. Co., 16 Tenn.App. 613, 65 S.W.2d 592, 598 (1933)) ... Angus, 968 S.W.2d at 808 (citing Weatherly v. American Agr. Chem. Co., 16 Tenn.App. 613, 65 S.W.2d 592 (1933)). While, contracts ... Eastman Chemical Co., 172 S.W.3d 512, 524-25 (Tenn.2005); Whitehaven Community Baptist ... ...
-
Trinity Industries v. McKinnon Bridge Co.
... ... See Weatherly v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 16 Tenn.App. 613, 65 S.W.2d 592 ... ...
-
Ridgelake Apartments v. Harpeth Valley Utilities District, No. M2003-02485-COA-R3-CV (TN 4/8/2005)
... ... Weatherly v. American Agric. Chem. Co., 16 Tenn.App. 613, 65 S.W.2d 592 (1933) ... Weatherly v. American Agr. Chem. Co., 16 Tenn.App. 613, 65 S.W.2d 592 (1933). A party seeking to ... ...
-
Frenchak v. Sunbeam Coal Corp.
... ... See Reis v. Norton Coal Co., 346 S.W.2d 8 (Ky.Crt.App.1961); Weatherly v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 16 Tenn.App. 613, 65 S.W.2d 592 ... ...