The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-07-20

|
| pany against the heirs of Ferdinand
| Won Storch, in which he decided that
the heirs are not entitled TO the forfeit
| ure of a lease of coal lands which
| passed from them to the West Ridge
| company some years ago. The lease
was for the coal in certain veins un-
| der one hundred acres of land in
| North Scranton the amount involved
is about $15O,OOO
| The suit was brought by the West
| Ridge company i'm the equity side of
| the court to restrain the heirs of Fer
dinand Won Storch from forfeiting the
| lease in question. A dispute arose
some time before the proceedings were
| begun as to the amount of the mini
mum royalties due for 1896. Tie COM
| rany rendered to the heirs what they
| alleged was due and the deCa ldants
refused to accept it and gave nouce
| o. Their intention to have the lease
for.eited If the amount claim.d by
| them as the minimum was not fo;tn-
| coming.
The plaintiff company then brought
It's Dill in equity to restrain the pro-
| pOSeu FORFEITURE. One of the princi-
| PAL contentious was as to whether the
upper Dunmore vein was a workable
| vein or not. The company claimed
that it had been demonstrated that it
was not and that they were therefore
relieved from the payment of the mini
| mum amount required under the lease.
| The heirs maintained the contrary and
also claimed the plaintiffs had not car
ried on their mining operations ener-
| getlcally and in u fair and equitable
| manner.
THE JUDGES DECISION.
Judge Archibald, before whom the
| case was heard, i'm his report filed yes
| terday, directs that a decree be made
restraining the defendants from FOR.
| letting the lease to the plaintiffs ana
| requiring the plaintiff to pay One-haif
/ the minimum royalties stipulated in
| the lease from Jan. /, 1896. to Sept. %,
| 1896, when notice of the intended fOr-
| feiture of the lease was served on the
| plaintiff company. From that time un-
| I'll Aug. l, 1899, during the pendency
| of the proceedings the plaintiff is re-
| qulred to pay for only such coal as was
| actually mined the notice of intention
| TO nave the lease forfeited having the
| C'IeCI of suSpending its provisions.
| 1t is further ordered that from Aug.
| l. 1892 the plaintiff company will be
| required to pay the full minimum
| unless it is hereafter established to
| the satisfaction of the court that the
| fault in the upper Dunmorc vein can
| not be overcome or that ii is not work
| able, which facts the judge holds have
| not yet been fully established by the
| plaintiff If the existence of this
| fault is established, then the company
| Is to be liable for only such of the am
| nual minimum as can with reaSOna BILE
| Il dligence be produced from the rest OF
| the property.
| There are two main questions in
| VolNed in the case under considers
| tCn. The Won StOrCh heirs alleged
| that $59lO,IO was due them i'm ro,ai-
ties from the company on Aug 20, 1890
! while Judge Archibald finds as a mat
| ter of fact that the amount was only
! Sl,9S2.25 He holds that inasmuch as
| the lessons had to give thirty days
| notice specifying the cause of forfeit
| ure it was only on failure to meet
| the demand within the time tina. they
| were entitled to a forfeiture. Having
! made an excessive demand the Lease
| could not be forfeited on that ground
In his opinion Judge Archibald says mp
! on this point:
FROM THE OPINION.
'We are not required, however, in the
| present instance in order to avoid the
effect of the notice of forfeiture to hold
! the defendants down to a demand cor
| rect to the very dollar. because the
demand they made nowhere ap-
| prOXimated the rent or royalties to
which they had a right Their claim
was for $4,000, while according to the
conclusions which I have reached they
We're justly entitled to but 81 ,9S395 or to
! but little more than one-thrd aS much
as. under the threat of forfeiture they
claimed This was excessive and un,
| warranted and cannot be made the
! basis Of any such proceedings to for
| felt as they endeavored TO set ON foot.
The notice was equally invalid un-
der the special provisions of the lease
itself. The right thus reserved to the
defendants to forfeit is not absolute,
but conditional. Notice must first be
! given of the intention to do so specify
ing the course, and it is only on failure
! within thirty days to remove or make
it good that their right of forfeiture
become complete. The notice being for
the purpose Of enabling the lessees to
comply >must manifestly ask no more
than the lessons are justly entitled to-"
J. Alton Davis, deceased; ex-Judge
Alfred Hand, W. j, Hand. ]. II. Tor
rey, Charles II. Weles and j. Y. Burr
were the attorneys for the company.
and Jessup & Jessup. of this city. and
T. T. Umstod, of WilkesBarre, for
! the heirs.
The victory is a substantial one for
the West Ridge company as valuable
improvements had been made on the
property for mining and cleaning coal
! which would have been valueIess if the
lease had been forfeited.