View Single Post
  #6  
Old 09-08-2012, 04:55 PM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,253
Default

Some notable disputes began about this time between landowners and mineral rights owners regarding access to coal.

January 25 1840





DAND v. KINGSCOTE

This cause was heard in the Exchequer court, on Wednesday, being an action for trespass, breaking and entering two closes of the plaintiff, called “Clark’s South Moor” and “Cuddy’s”, sinking pits, &c. therein.
The defendant pleaded a custom in the manor of Amble, in Northumberland, for the lord to enter upon the lands of other persons for the purpose of procuring coal; and set forth a title in the late Earl of Newburgh, and justification under the present Countess.
Various other justifications were set forth on the pleadings, which extended to nearly 30 " brief" sheets. The arguments on the various points raised, occupied the Court for many hours and ultimately their Lordships took time to consider their judgment.




DAND v. KINGSCOTE.

The Court of Exchequer, on the 30th ult. delivered its judgment in this case, which we reported a short time ago. It is very elaborate and contains there folio sides, but the gist may be shewn from the following correct extract from it. This reservation is to be construed according to the rule laid down in Shephard’s Touchstone, 100. In the same way that a grant by the owner of the soil of the like liberties, for what will pass by words in a grant will be expected by like words on an exception. Now the reservation is of the right to dig pit or pits (which pits are mentioned in the compensation clause, to be such as may thereafter happen to be sunk), and of sufficient wayleave and stayleave connected with those pits. There is no doubt that the object of the reservation is to get the coals beneficially to the owner of them, and, therefore, it should seem that there passes by it a right to such a description of wayleave, and in such direction as will be reasonably sufficient to enable the coal owner to get from time to time all the seams of coal to a reasonable profit, and therefore, the owner is not confined to such description of way as is in use at the time of the grant, and in such a direction as is then convenient." According to the same rule in Sheapard’s Touchstone, 100. “The coal owner had, as incident to the liberty to dig pits, the right to fix such machinery as would be necessary to drain the mines and draw the coals from the pit. The case finds the steam engine which was erected was necessary for the winning and working the lower seams, which are the principal seams in the coal field, and therefore, the Defendant had a right to erect it.” There are other points in the decision which relate to the boundaries of the township which affect the parties themselves, but the above is what more materially concerns the public and our mineral subscribers.
Reply With Quote