Bestwick v. Ormsby Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 28, 1889

Bestwick v. Ormsby Coal Co., 129 Pa. 592 (Pa. 1889)

18 A. 538; 1889 Pa. LEXIS 991

Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Stebbett, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Opinion,

Mb. Justice Stebbett :

By agreement of counsel, this cause was tried by the court below without the intervention of a jury. All the facts necessary to a proper understanding of the questions that arose appear in the record that was made up by the learned judge who presided at the trial. The cause was well tried. The questions ' now presented by the specifications of error appear to have been fully considered and correctly disposed of. We find nothing in the record that calls for a reversal of the judgment. For the reasons given in the decision of the learned judge, and in his opinion overruling exceptions thereto, the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: THOMAS BESTWICK v. ORMSBY COAL CO.
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: (a) A coal contract, executed by trustees who had legal ownership of the coal but not of the surface, granted and conveyed all the coal under a tract of land, the grantees covenanting to mine and remove 4,000 tons of coal yearly, or pay for the same as though mined. (b) The contract further provided: “ The party of the first part also grant and convey to said second party, their heirs and assigns, the right of way through, over or under said land, to transport coal from adjacent lands.” (c) It was provided also, that the grantees, etc., “ shall have the right to abandon this contract and yield up said coal mine and privileges at any time they shall determine in their judgment that said coal is in quantity, quality, or condition, no longer mineable with economy and profit.” (d) At a certain date, the grantees delivered to the grantors a deed of release and surrender of all the coal conveyed, and all the right, title, etc., of the grantees therein, but continued afterwards in the use of a way through the coal conveyed to coal operated by them on adjacent lands. 1. In such case, the grantees were held to account for the coal mined and removed by them from the lands granted, although when mined, etc., it was mistakenly supposed to be upon lands owned individually by one of the grantors, and was at the time paid for as such to him. 2. The grantees were bound for the payment of the annual royalty so long as they retained possession and use of the right of way, and the fact that all the coal except the ribs had been removed was no defence, the grantors having the right to have all the coal removed, the right of the surface owner not being in question.