Bulletin 143 Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining

RIGHT OF LIFE TENAN1' TO OPEN MINES. The common-law rule that a life tenant was not permitted to open or share in mines does not prevail in Michigan; but a life tenant by dower right is permitted to share in the royalties, as the strict common- law rule is not in harmony with the spirit of our institutions and the policy of our law and would often result in defeating the purposes of dower statutes. Poole v. Union Trust Co. (Michigan), 157 Northwestern 430, p. 432, March, 1916. SALE AND CONVEYANCE. PURCHASE OF ENTIRE ESTATE--FRAUD. A purchase of land where no exceptions or reservations of minerals were made and the land was bought as property, when nothing is excepted and no qualifications or reservations are embodied in the agreement, was presumptively and by common understanding a purchase of the property in its entirety; and the insertion in the deed of a reservation of mineral rights in violation of the contract of purchase and without the grantee's knowledge or consent was fraudulent. Mtynarczyk v Zyskowski (Michigan), 157 Northwestern 566, p. 569, March, 1916. RESERVATION OF MINERALS--EXTENT AND EFFECL A reservation in a conveyance of land excepting and reserving to the grantor all coals and mines beneath the surface with the sole right and privilege to remove the same, is not as broad as the grant itself. A contract for the purchase of a mine recited that a deed had been executed by the owner and placed in escrow to so remain until the sum of $30,000 should be paid. The contract provided that $1,200 of the purchase price was to be paid in cash, $800 in 60 days, and the remainder out of 20 per cent of the gross output of the mine, such per cent to be paid in five years unless the vein and value of ore should not continue in depth, in which event the purchaser was to have two years longer to complete the payment of the purchase price. The contract contained other covenants to the effect that the purchasing corporation would fit up a certain specified mill and would continue development work at such rate as to keep the mill in operation if ores sufficiently valuable should be found and in the absence of unavoidable accident. The contract also provided 1/ that abandonment of work for a period of six months at anyone time, except as above, on said property," should operate as a forfeiture of the purchaser's right. In an action by the vendor to quiet the title to the land and to have the contract declared void, the court found that the purchaser failed to perform the work on the property and failed to place thereon the improvements as required by the contract and permitted debts to accumulate against the property, taxes to be levied thereon, and that for more than a year the purchaser had not done any work or labor of any sort upon the mine or premises, and that the contract contemplated development work from the time the purchaser took possession of the property, or at least promptly thereafter, and the fact that no machinery was in place for a year or more after the execution of the contract was a breach of the covenant of continued development, and that the clause in the contract" except as above" does not contemplate a delay in the development resulting from a failure to install machinery, but it means that unless prevented by unavoidable accidents the purchaser shouLdhave no valid excuses for neglecting the work for a period of six months or more.