their time fifteen minutes and then when time has obviously referring to the same thing but grammatically those words are pro they take meaning only by reference to something that comes earlier and to see to the natural question when your honour's  but if you look up at that parcels description at a forty you'll find it never mentions hole at all not a single parcel description everman the partial descriptions themselves contain no antecedent to  know reservations to clarify the position that we've taken your honors our position is not that the together with others apply equally to one through eighty three right the position that that we have now the difference is each one then has an independent meeting and the important point is while the together with all the in isolation may appear to be the same the group of rights clauses the two together with paul and the surface the above described realistic and quote again reading the do you know as a whole are clear that the above described real estate here and the following describes real estate in branson bonds are referring to the same thing namely the entire series of parcels and this conclusion finds further support in the fact that the service option allowed piers by his plan for various improvements necessary desirable in quote the mining refining draining marketing and removing all said party is just six months after agreeing to purity a thought it necessary to reduce the option price per acre affordable to those parcels if appellants were correct there would have been nothing to reduce it but there would have been no option price it all points there first of all as a matter of fact long wall mining was perhaps not the most common method of mining at the time the piers the st sign existed and was well now it was being mining happening in illinois on the piers he came into existence now setting that back aside again i think maybe the better point is these themselves are not ambiguous the terms they use you the record in this case is a and enormous dispute over whether any shallow weather is mindful and so on so those are kind of open questions you know that i think this question kind of get side by side in the indeed as part of the same sense there's no reason to treat them differently and the fact is either way impure instruction or with a pelleas have a right to subside every parcel question he said there were five different insertions after these descriptions ask why insert the additional four causes or the answer is simple it's because those additional four cars are all different the lot which everyone's familiar with even if you're not familiar with the coal industry you buy a lot it comes with right of access utilities women's right to enforce restrictive covenants like your neighbor capital the store next obligations still go up a lot they run with the land your neighbor still cannot open the store even though he can't soil it was in my did because it's in his change of tile let's take a look at the original grant in this case  repeatedly held by the home supreme court and call it courts and really courts all throughout the united states it is that fundamental it doesn't matter if they could have said nothing about subsidence rights or any other right and in fact many called conveyances do they don't say once the right is established just like with your your lot in cherry hills you know you have to do skin they will stay and all these a partner rights go with it so my clients own the coal and m accommodation and the rule of reason because it's something that we believe that there should be an expansion or an application existing or to the situation thank you constant rebuttal and we'll just  modifications we can't find th