West v. Brugger

Citations

• 103 Kan. 494
• 175 P. 673
• 1918 Kan. LEXIS 305

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Mining Lease — Construction—Rights of Forfeiture. Under a contract by which the owner of a tract of land agreed upon certain conditions to grant a mining lease, it is held that a right to declare a forfeiture, if the work of development was suspended for ten days, was given to him by provisions that the other party was to begin work by a.certain date, and not cease for more than ten days at a time, and that if he failed to carry out any of the terms of the contract the owner might effect a forfeiture by giving a written notice thereof.</p> <p>2. Same — Right to Forfeit Not Waived by Extension. Under such circumstances an extension by the owner of the time of commencing work did not amount to a waiver of the requirement that work should not be suspended for more than ten days.</p> <p>3. Same — Lease Assigned — Notice of Forfeiture Sufficient. Where the other party to such a contract had assigned a part of his rights thereunder to others, he cannot successfully attack the validity of a forfeiture declared by the owner, on the ground that no notice was served upon any one but himself.</p> <p>4. Same — Operation of Mine after Forfeiture — Right of Forfeiture Not Affected. The rights of the other party to such a contract are not affected by the fact that after the declaration of forfeiture the pe - son who had been conducting mining operations under an arrangement with him continued to operate under a new agreement with the owner.</p> <p>5. Same — Acts Authorizing Forfeiture Not Collusive. The finding of. the trial court against the contention that proceedings for forfeiting rights under such a contract were collusive, and therefore -invalid, held to have been supported by substantial evidence, and consequently to be binding upon this court.</p>