Title: Davis v. Plunkett
Citation: 187 Kan. 121, 353 P.2d 514
Docket Number: 41,961
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 2, 1960

187 Kan. 121 (1960)
353 P.2d 514
LUTIE M. DAVIS and ANN DAVIS MARLOW, Appellees,
v.
J.W. PLUNKETT, Appellant.
No. 41,961

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 2, 1960.
Bradley Post, of Meade, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
E. Keith Beard, of Meade, argued the cause, and David J. Wilson, of Meade, was with him on the brief for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
As between the parties to this appeal, this was an action to quiet title. The question presented involves the construction of a "Mining Lease" covering eighty acres of land in Meade county, which reads as follows:
"Witness our hand this 17th day of May, 1926.
(Emphasis supplied.)
The pleadings disclose that in 1927 The Volcanic Ash Company of America, lessee, assigned the lease to The Pumicite Company, which in turn, in 1949, assigned the lease to defendant Plunkett, appellant herein.
Plaintiff owners of the land contend the lease covers only volcanic ash and gypsum.
Defendant, assignee of the lease, contends the language "and all other minerals or mineral derivatives" contained in the lease includes oil and gas.
The trial court heard the case on the pleadings, briefs and argument of counsel, and held that the lease in question was intended to and does pertain only to volcanic ash and gypsum. From that judgment defendant assignee has appealed, and, while several matters pertaining to the pleadings are raised, actually the only question is whether this lease covers minerals other than volcanic ash and gypsum  that is  oil and gas.
We are cited to no authority specifically in point, but in the recent case of In re Estate of Trester, 172 Kan. 478, 241 P.2d 475, a somewhat analogous question was involved. In that case an instrument entitled "Sale of Oil and Gas Royalty" conveyed an interest in and to "all of the oil, gas and other minerals in and under" the land in question, and it was later contended the language was broad enough to include a deposit of clay on the land. The trial court *124 held that the words "other minerals" did not include the clay, and in upholding that ruling this court said:
In the case before us the instrument in question is denominated a "Mining Lease." The lessee therein was a volcanic ash company. Considering all parts of the lease it seems clear that its primary object was concerned with the mining and removal of volcanic ash and gypsum. That was the subject matter of the lease. It provided for a right of way leading to the "deposit," which is indicative of the fact the exact location of such deposit was known by the parties prior to the execution of the lease. Notwithstanding the fact the lease contains the words "and all other minerals or mineral derivatives," we think it is clear that the correct construction to be placed on this instrument is that the specific reference to volcanic ash and gypsum, and to a right of way to the "deposit," limits the lease to those minerals, and that the trial court was correct in so holding.
The judgment is affirmed.