Gearhart v. Gwinn

Citations

• 32 Pa. Super. 567
• 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 56

Syllabus

<p>Mines and mining — License to mine coal — Revocation of license — Notice • — Mailing notice.</p> <p>A licensor of coal testified in an action of ejectment that he mailed to the licensee the following notice: “You will do nothing further in the coal matter. I refer to the written license I gave you to mine certain coal under land bought by me at sheriff’s sale as the land of C. The written license in question gave me the authority to terminate the contract at my option and I now terminate it. It may be, when I see you, that we can come to satisfactory arrangements for the future, but, under the present circumstances and conditions, I desire the contract to be at an end.” The licensee claimed that he had never received the notice. It appeared that nothing' was done under the license for more than four years after the date of the notice. The notice was offered for the purpose of establishing the fact that it had been given, but the offer was rejected. Held, (1) that the notice was sufficient to terminate the license notwithstanding the use of the word “desire;” (2) that the question whether the notice was received was, under all the circumstances, for the jury; (3) that the fact that there had been no work done for more than four years after the date of the notice was an important circumstance tending to show that the licensee had abandoned the property; (4) that the copy of the notice offered in evidence for the purpose stated, was properly rejected.</p> <p>Where an issue turns upon whether a license to mine coal was in proper form and properly given, the question as to what money was expended by the licensee in the development of the mine, is not relevant, if it appears that this expenditure was a necessary incident of the license.</p> <p>Mines and mining — Coal lease — Revocation of lease — Expert—Evidence.</p> <p>Where a lessor in a mining lease reserves the right to terminate the lease, whenever in his opinion, “the lessees failed to use due diligence in mining