Miles v. New York, Susquehanna & Western Coal Co.

Citations

• 250 Pa. 147
• 95 A. 397
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 920

Syllabus

<p>Mines and mining — Goal lease — Construction—Waiver of surface support — Removal of coal — Pillars—-Rquity.</p> <p>1. A deed or grant must be construed most strongly against the grantor. This applies with especial force to a reservation or restriction in a deed, whereby there is a withholding of something from the grant, and this rule applies to a mining lease.</p> <p>2. A stipulation in a mining lease for careful and skilful mining relates only to the manner of working the coal, and does not impose upon the operating company the duty of supporting the surface.</p> <p>3. Upon an application for an injunction to restrain the lessee under a certain coal lease from removing pillars of coal which were needed to support the surface, it appeared 'that the lease granted “all the coal and veins of coal upon the property,” and was to continue “for and during such period and term as shall be required in order to mine, prepare and carry away all the merchantable and marketable coal in, under and upon the said tract of land,” and that the lessee covenanted that he would mine and pay for all the coal under the tract, and was given the right to remove breakers, machinery, etc., after all the coal had been mined, and further contained express exemption of the lessee from the consequences of injury done to the surface of the ground, unless such damage resulted from “wilful misbehavior or gross negligence.” There was no contention that there had been negligence in. the method of mining, but it was contended that a clause in the lease providing that pillars should be left, sufficient to support the roof, “so that at the expiration of the term of this lease from whatever cause, the mines and improvements shall be left in as good order and condition for future mining as any prudent operator would leave the same were he entitled to continue mining for a series of years,” made it the duty of the lessee to leave the pillars of coal in controversy. The court decided (1) that the grant c