Opinion ID: 1362228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sale of Fill Material

Text: Appellant next argues that the sale of fill material from the rock fill does not qualify that portion of the rock fill as a substantial improvement. The testimony established that over the years considerable quantities of the fill were sold for building construction purposes, airport construction, street sanding and other uses. Appellant now argues that such use of the fill tended to destroy it rather than enhance it from the status of mere fill to that of a permanent improvement. The most reasonable construction to be placed on this evidence would seem to be that the business of supplying mine disposal materials for sale for construction purposes was carried on by appellee on the rock fill. Until the mine closed in 1944 thousands of tons per day of disposal passed over the rock fill. Whether the major portion of the materials sold had been dumped and had acquired the status of fill or were mine disposal stockpiled on the fill for later sale is not clear from the evidence. It is not contended that enough actual fill was sold from any given area to destroy that portion of the fill. Under the circumstances and since the materials were used for construction purposes, we hold that to the extent that it was used for the sale of fill materials the rock fill was being put to a beneficial use.