My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE43364
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE43364
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:45:50 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 11:33:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005080
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/16/2006
Doc Name
Opposition to Objectors Motion
From
Attorneys for Allen
To
DRMS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
followed by a more general word or phrase, such general word or phrase is held to refer to things <br />of the same kind, or things that fall within the classification of the specific terms." Id. (quoting <br />Bumpus v. United States, 325 F.2d 264 (10`" Cir. 1963)). In applying this principle, the Colorado <br />courts have consistently found that minerals reservations of the kind at issue here evidence no <br />intent to reserve sand or gravel. See Farrell, 270 P.2d at 193 (reservation of "all mineral and <br />mineral rights" held not to include sand or gravel); Morrison, 600 P.2d at 123 (reservation of "an <br />undivided one-half of all oil, gas and other minerals underlying the premises" did not reserve <br />sand or gravel); Kinney, 128 P.3d at 306-7 (reservation of a "one-half interest in and to all oil, <br />gas and minerals lying in, under or upon said premises" did not reserve sand or gravel). <br />Objectors have produced no competent evidence establishing that the intent of the parties to the <br />1963 Warranty deed was to the contrary. <br />d. Allen has the right to extract the sand and gravel on its property regardless <br />of the scope of the mineral reservation. <br />Assuming, arguendo, that the 1963 Warranty Deed did create a reservation of one-half of <br />all the sand and gravel at the property in favor of N.C. Cazgill, Cazgill's successor in interest and <br />Allen would hold the entire sand and gravel estate as tenants in common. As a tenant in <br />common, Allen would have the right to use the property and to receive a portion of any income <br />produced from it. Taylor v. Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961, 964 (Colo. 2004). More importantly, <br />Allen would have the right to enter and mine the common property without the consent of any <br />cotenant subject only to an accounting to the other cotenants for their respective shares. As <br />C.R.S. § 34-44-103 mandates, when two or more individuals hold a mining property together as <br />tenants in common, "[ajny one or more such tenants in common shall have the right to enter <br />upon, occupy, prospect, develop, and work said mine ...without the consent of any nonworking <br />tenant in common, subject to accounting to the nonworking tenant in common for his <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.