Court Opinion

ID: 9449743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:21:26.488538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:58.007726
License: Public Domain

MURRAH, Chief Judge
(concurring specially).
I fully concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the trial Court. But I prefer to do so on the simple premise that the instrument of taking, by its plain terms, reserved only “the subsurface estate, or any interest therein.” The trial Court has found that the gravel, which is the subject of this suit, was not a part of the subsurface estate, but of the surface soil. That finding is fully supported by the evidence and hence, we have no need to determine whether, as a part of the subsurface, the gravel would be classified as a mineral.