Court Opinion

ID: 9706169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:33:20.774972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:19.851430
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Hershey dissenting: I dissent from the majority opinion, because I do not believe the requirements pertaining to possession within one year were intended by the legislature to be applicable to the grantee of a tax deed conveying “the minerals” alone. Further, the construction of the statute adopted by the majority may well have the effect of nullifying the whole purpose of tax sales as a means of expediting the collection of taxes on severed mineral estates. The two requirements (i.e., acquiring possession or occupation within a year, or bringing an action within that time to take possession) must be considered separately. In determining the application of the first of these requirements, “possession or occupation of said premises * * * within one year,” it is necessary at the outset to ascertain the following: (1) What type of possession is meant — actual possession or constructive possession? (2) If actual possession, what does this mean with reference to “the minerals” underlying land? There seems to be no dispute between the parties but that actual, physical possession was intended by the legislature. This court so interpreted the statute in Bowers v. Glos, 346 Ill. 623, a case involving the surface estate. In that case we said, at page 629: “The act in question * * * imposes [upon the holder of the tax title] the necessity of taking actual possession, * * *.” And if the legislature had in mind merely constructive possession, nothing further about possession would need be stated, since the deed itself would give the grantee constructive possession of the property. The use of the word “occupation” in conjunction with “possession” also supports this conclusion. Next, what does actual possession of “the minerals” signify? Virtually the only cases wherein courts have touched on this problem are those in which disputes have arisen as to what constitutes adverse possession of a certain mineral. In general, where the title to the surface and to the underlying minerals has been severed, possession of the surface, unaccompanied by any acts of dominion over the minerals, does not constitute possession of the minerals. (Catlin Coal Co. v. Lloyd, 180 Ill. 398; Renfro v. Hanon, 297 Ill. 353; Kinder v. LaSalle County Carbon Coal Co. 301 Ill. 362; Uphoff v. Trustees of Tufts College, 351 Ill. 146.) Rather, something must be done with respect to the minerals themselves. At the minimum, mining or drilling operations must be instituted, and the apparent weight of authority is that solid minerals must actually be removed from the ground and oil and gas actually produced in order to have the requisite possession thereof. See cases cited and discussed in Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas, volume 1A, section 138, pages 307, 315-20. By taking account of the foregoing, and reasoning further, I believe it can be demonstrated that this requirement that the grantee assume actual possession within one year from the date of the tax deed was not intended to apply to the grantee of a tax deed conveying only “the minerals.” First, it is apparent that it is a physical impossibility, reasonably speaking, for a grantee to assume actual possession of “the minerals” underlying land within one year. Actually, he could not be certain that he even knew what, if any, minerals there were under the land. Perhaps he might through appropriate acts of dominion and control be able to reduce to possession a certain mineral or a portion thereof. But even then, such possession of one mineral (coal, for example) would not amount to actual possession of the others (such as oil, gas, etc.). And if one were to bring in a dry hole in an effort to produce oil (or twenty dry holes, for that matter), he would not have taken actual possession of any mineral at all. Consider further the economic realities of the situation. The uncontradicted evidence is that in the counties of Illinois where oil and gas are produced the average is two dry holes for every producer. This particular area being “wildcat” territory, the average is one producer to thirty dry holes with the cost of drilling a single well being about $12,000. And it was stipulated that to justify a new coal mine in the area, a block of at least 2000' acres of land would be needed, with the cost involved in sinking a shaft and equipping a mine in excess of $500,000. When the foregoing factors are contrasted with the small effort and expense necessary to take actual possession of a surface estate, the conclusion seems inescapable that the legislation in question, originally enacted in 1909 when oil and gas production was not widespread, was meant to apply only to the surface estate, where the requirement in both a physical and an economic sense could be complied with. Constructions of statutes leading to absurd consequences are to be avoided. (People ex rel. Bodecker v. Community Unit School Dist. 409 Ill. 526; Jones v. Pebler, 371 Ill. 309; Ketcham v. Board of Education, 324 Ill. 314.) “The court should strive to avoid a construction which will tend to make the statute unjust, oppressive, unreasonable, absurd, mischievous, or contrary to the public interest. That construction should be accepted which will make the statute effective and productive of the most good, as it is presumed that these results were intended by the legislature. In order to carry out the legislative intent, it is therefore apparent that the statute should be given a rational, logical and sensible interpretation. Any construction should be avoided, if possible, as contrary to the intent of the law-makers, that produces any effect at a variance with the commonly recognized concepts of what is right, just and ethical.” Crawford, The Construction of Statutes, pp. 288-90. To construe this statute as requiring the grantee of a tax deed conveying only “the minerals” to be in actual possession within one year, is to apply a requirement which, as explained above, cannot be met. Such a construction may thus nullify the whole purpose of tax sales as a means of expediting the collection of taxes on severed mineral estates. I am satisfied that such was not within the reasonable contemplation of the legislature. Second, apart from the construction given to this statute in prior cases as requiring actual possession and the meaning of actual possession as related to minerals, I believe a further examination of the words of the statute, in and of themselves, indicates that the legislature did not intend to bind a tax-deed grantee of “the minerals” to the requirement under consideration. It is to be noted that the statute refers to one who is not in “possession or occupation” of said “premises.” While there may be exceptions, generally one is not said to be in “occupation” of minerals, nor are minerals (particularly oil and gas) referred to as “premises.” It is a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that words of a statute are to be interpreted in their ordinary acceptation and significance and the meaning commonly attributed to them. (50 Am. Jur., Statutes, sec. 238.) So, even though underground minerals are real estate, it is hardly correct to say they are encompassed, in the context of this statute, within the term “premises.” Likewise, while “occupation” and “possession” are often used synonymously, it would be most unusual to speak of one as “occupying” the solid minerals or the oil and gas. Third, there is a basic contradiction in saying that one may acquire actual possession of the minerals as real estate. For just as soon as one assumes actual possession (i.e., mines coal, produces oil, etc.), such minerals so reduced to possession are no longer real property but become personal property. Therefore, if one were altogether successful in acquiring actual possession of the minerals, he would not then "be in possession or occupation” of any real estate whatever. Fourth, there is an additional difficulty inherent in the construction adopted by the majority when we consider certain legal concepts relating to oil and gas. The Illinois view as to the ownership of oil and gas is stated in Miller v. Ridgley, 2 Ill. 2d 223, at pages 230-1: “We have found that oil and gas, because of their fugacious nature, are incapable of an ownership distinct from the soil so long as they remain in the earth. Consequently the ownership of the surface determines the extent of ownership of oil underlying the surface. It is therefore impossible to distinguish the ownership of the oil in place in the earth from the ownership of the surface. However, we have found that the rights to this oil may be so reserved or conveyed as to create a separate freehold estate. Those rights are the rights to explore and find the oil, produce it, and to use or market it once it is reduced to physical possession.” It follows that the appellant did not receive by his tax deed the ownership of the oil and gas in place in the ordinary sense, but the right “to explore and find the oil, produce it, and to use or market it once it is reduced to physical possession.” As to the oil and gas, it may be said that immediately upon execution of the deed, the appellant came into actual possession of the right to explore for, produce and own, the oil and gas underlying the land. The fact' he did not choose to exercise the right does not mean he did not possess said right. Thus, by reason of the view of this court regarding the ownership of oil and gas underlying the ground, which concept in a sense is different from the theory of ownership applicable to the surface estate or to the solid minerals, a strong argument can be made that by merely being the grantee of the tax deed the appellant literally complied with the statute. As to the other requirement, “take or institute proceedings in good faith to take possession within one year,” it can be shown that even if this were surface property, this provision would not apply here. For while it is undisputed that the appellant did not bring any suit or action to gain possession of the property within one year from the date of the tax deed, it is also undisputed that no one else was in possession of the property or attempted to assert any rights therein. The majority suggest that ejectment was available to the appellant. But whom would he sue, and what would he allege? He had no defendant, since no one else was in possession or asserting any possessory rights in the property. (See 28 C.J.S., Ejectment, sec. 32.) Consequently, if he were to have brought an ejectment action (against the appellees, for example,) in order to allege a cause of action he would have had to swear falsely. The majority apparently consider the appellees as the paramount title holders even after the issuance of the appellant’s tax deed. Therefore, they conclude that the appellant could have brought ejectment in reliance on the superiority of his title “to eject the claimed paramount owner from his constructive possession.” This'assumes that after the issuance of the tax deed the appellees continued to have such a possessory interest in the property as would make them subject to an ejectment action filed by the appellant. But the majority recognize that “the tax deed to appellant conveying the minerals had the effect of vesting in him title in fee to the entire mineral estate subject, however, to any redemption provided by law.” Thus, apart from statutory redemption rights, the appellees had no interest or title in the property. Certainly they were not “paramount owners” with “constructive possession.” (See 51 Am. Jur., Taxation, sec. 1078.) In short, after the tax deed, the appellees had no possessory rights in the property nor did they claim any; hence, the appellant had no occasion (or right) to bring an action against them “to take possession.” Likewise, the same reasons can be advanced with regard to a suit to quiet title, for declaratory judgment, or any other remedy which may be conceived of as appropriate “to take possession” of the property. I am thus convinced that the construction problem is decisive, but I believe the majority holding also raises serious constitutional questions. I consider that the effect of the decision is to create an unconstitutional classification. The two types of property are different. Indeed, they are so different that if the legislature should (as the majority state they did) require both a surface owner and the owner of “the minerals” to reduce his property to actual possession within one year in order to bar redemption rights, a situation results where the requirement becomes impossible to comply with in the one case and very easy to comply with in the other. Moreover, the properties are fundamentally different (as regards this possession requirement) in the sense that in reducing the minerals to actual possession, their character is changed from real to personal property. This, too, if developed further, would indicate a necessity for a separate classification which recognizes legal and economic realities and provides for reasonable procedures in both cases,