Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Brown, Fell, McCollum, Mitchell, Potter
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal No. 38 from judgment of Court of Common Pleas, Elk County, September Term 1897 (originally No. 96), heard January Term 1901
Related Laws
Outcome
Appeal in ejectment action regarding 2,931 acres in Jones township, Elk County. The case involves dispute over whether a tax sale in 1892 divested plaintiffs' legal title to gas, coal, iron and petroleum rights, with plaintiffs arguing the tax assessment applied only to surface rights, not mineral rights.
Excerpt
<p>Appeal, No. 38, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Elk Co., Sept. T., 1897, No. 96, on trial by court without a jury in case of Charles H. Hutchinson, Harry Gr. Clay and William Hacker, now by substitution William I. Leiper instead of William Hacker, Deceased, Trustees, v. M. S. Kline.</p> <p>Ejectment for land in Jones township.</p> <p>The case was tried by Mayer, P. J., without a jury.</p> <p>The opinion of the court was as follows:</p> <p>This action of ejectment was brought to recover possession of a certain piece of land situate in Jones township, Elk county, containing 2,931 acres, three rods and nine perches, being part of warrant No. 3252 and the western parts of warrants Nos. 3231, 3232 and 3251.</p> <p>The legal title to the land described in the writ was in the plaintiffs prior to February 13, 1883, and at the time of the bringing of the action of ejectment the legal title to the gas, coal, iron and petroleum was vested in the plaintiffs and would entitle them to recover in this action, unless this title was divested by virtue of a tax sale by the treasurer of Elk county on July 2, 1892, to J. Powell under whom the defendant, M. S. Kline, claims title. The validity of this tax sale so far as the surface of the said tracts of land is concerned, is not disputed, except that it is claimed because of the description of the conveyance by metes and bounds these several tracts compose an entirety and should have been taxed together and not by separate warrants. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the assessments of taxes against these tracts as unseated land should be held to apply only to the surface, which by reason of the reservations in the deeds of conveyance was a separate estate from the mineral rights.</p> <p>The parties to this suit by agreement filed dispensed with a trial by jury, and it ivas submitted to the decision of the court under the act of April 22,1874.</p> <p>FINDINGS OF FACT.</p> <p>It was not shown on the trial that
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
<p>Appeal from Fannin. Tried below before Hon. D. H. Scott,</p> <p>On the-day of December, 1876, appellants filed a suit in the district court of Fannin county for recovery of an undivided interest in land in controversy.</p> <p>On September 6, 1880, Margaret Boone and her husband, J. W. Boone, Olive T. Wainscott and her husband, Thomas J. Wainscott, and Jacob H. Humphrey, filed their fifth amended petition in the district court of Fannin, county against Harvey B. Cobb, John Hulsey and many others, for their, appellants’, undivided interest in the Daniel Davis league and labor of land.</p> <p>In said petition appellants allege that in December, 1874, they were seized and possessed of said land in their own right as follows, respectively: Margaret Boone, of an undivided interest of one-half and said Olive T. Wainscott and Jacob H. Humphrey, each of an undivided interest of one-eighth in the said Daniel Davis league and labor of land. That on December -, 1874, the appellees expelled appellants therefrom. That there were many farms on said land and the appellees had used and cultivated the cleared land for their own use and appropriated all the rents and profits thereof since and for years before the commencement of this suit and withheld from appellants their share in same. That the rents and profits were of the value of twenty thousand dollars, and that appellants had been thereby damaged ten thousand dollars. That appellees cut down and used a large number of trees growing upon said land of the value of and to appellant’s damage ten thousand dollars.</p> <p>That appellants, Margaret and Daniel Davis, were married in Texas in 1834 and lived together as such and were reputed to be and were man and wife in Texas from that time until the death of Daniel Davis, which took place in 1838.</p> <p>That they were, both of them, residents of Texas at and before their marriage and continued to be so, the said Daniel Davis until his death, in 1838, and the said Margaret until th
<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Huneke, J. entered May 28, 1913, upon findings in favor of the defendant, in an action in ejectment, tried to the court.</p>
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.