Worrall v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 08 April 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 619,101 Iowa 475
• Parties: JAMES WORRALL AND MARY WORRALL v. SAMUEL WILSON, et al., Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

70 N.W. 619

101 Iowa 475

JAMES WORRALL AND MARY WORRALL v. SAMUEL WILSON, et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 8, 1897

Appeal from Monroe District Court.--HON. T. M. FEE, Judge.

MAY 14 1894, plaintiffs, in writing, leased to one Pierson the right to mine the coal underlying forty acres of land. Pierson took possession under his lease, and conducted mining operations. The lease was for a period of ten years, subject to the conditions stated therein. One of the provisions of said lease granted to Pierson the use of two acres of the surface of the ground for hoisting the coal to be mined under the lease. Pierson selected this two acres of ground so as to embrace the coal shaft then upon said leased land. Afterwards Pierson, with the consent of the lessors, transferred his lease and his rights thereunder to the defendant, Samuel Wilson, who took possession of said premises, and prosecuted the work of mining coal for a time. About March 5, 1895 Wilson, or those operating with him, with his consent, ceased to operate said mine, or to mine coal from said land, and dismantled the mine by tearing up and removing the track in the mine; removed the cars therefrom; took down the machinery of the shaft, including the hoisting apparatus; and tore out and removed the timbers. In May following, Wilson and the other defendants again entered upon said premises, and began sinking a new hoisting shaft at a point not within the two acres above mentioned. Plaintiffs then began this suit claiming that Wilson abandoned and surrendered the lease, and asking that all of the defendants be barred from having any rights under said lease, and that they be enjoined from prosecuting their work. A temporary injunction issued, and on final hearing, the district court held that Wilson had abandoned all of his rights under the lease, and surrendered the same to the plaintiffs, and perpetually enjoined all of the defendants from sinking said shaft, and from entering or occupying said premises. The defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Henry L. Dashiell for appellants.

T. B. Perry for appellees.

OPINION

KINNE, C. J.

The chief

point of contention between the parties is as to whether the defendant, Wilson, abandoned the premises, and surrendered his lease to plaintiffs. The court below found that he did. While the evidence is conflicting, still we think it is abundant to sustain the finding of the district court....