PERMFILE67630

• Permit No: M1984154
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 8/17/1984
• Doc Name: LIMITED IMPACT 110 AND SPECIAL 10 DAY 111 PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

'!il Colo.
Mich was
r opera-
r." The
but was
hove set
nt Sayre
''uu can't
ne, a re-
~ i~•e me a
"' Sayre
wing that
leis ]ease,
cement,"
' ows:
National
arrell.
.:;iy, 1943,
nal Bank,
and Law-
The Colo-
ios of the
yin lands,
]'arty of
ravel ma-
nd crusher
:. and 33,
6th P.M.
ncd.
.f the sec-
:] part one
Payments
I;il~le engi-
c executed
April, '54 ] FARRELL 'U. SAFRE 371 '':
this agreement, the day and year first above written. ~;,~~
Robert H. Sayre :.s;
Parties of the First Part The Colorado National Bank, j"~i
Denver, Colorado ~~~
Geo. Klein
"Witness: Lucy I. Harrington I t
Lawrence C. Farrell L. C. Farrel] ~ i;~
Witness: Party of the Second Part" ~"$
Farrell then assigned his rights to the railroad com- ~ ~31

pany, which took possession of the premises and ex- ,
~'~ ~
tended the track thereon, which was almost entirely on ;~~
that part of section 32 covered by the Carleno deed. By 1; ~
this operation the railroad company removed 156,586 ~;
~
cubic }•ards of grave] in the years from 1943 to 1949, and ,.
~
defendant Sayre accepted royalties therefor from the "`'~
company and never objected to Farrell's assignment to ~I
the railroad company. These gravel rights, exercised by `
the railroad company, were conveyed to assignees of ~ ~~
plaintiff Farrell. During the operations defendant's sec- {~
retary, upon learning that the railroad company was
paying a royalty to plaintiff, attempted to have a mutual '
cancellation of the ]ease, which Farrell refused, but in- ,+ eY
creased his royalty to defendant Sayre by one cent per ~'}"I
cubic yard. In 1949, when the railroad company ceased 4i
its gravel operations on the land, plaintiff Farrell sought ~~e
another market for the gravel, particularly the Public i
Service Company of Colorado, for use in refacing a dam ~
in that territory; negotiations were entered into; and de- ~~.~
fendant Sayre attempted to revoke the so-called "Pac- ,4t;
lotus Agreement,' herein set out, by a simple notice to ;~~±
that effect. 1
1
The trial court held that plaintiff Farrell's assignment ~
+
i

for the Public Service Company negotiations without the
f S
l
l ,~
. •,~j
ayre ordinari
y wou
consent o
d terminate the provi-
sions of the agreement, since the latter never was any- `;t:~
thing ma•e than a mere license. ~ ,,~;
The present action originated by Farrell filing acorn- ' `, '
I
plaint for declaratory judgment adjudicating the rights ~ •~ ,
,1