PERMFILE67630 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i~ 37Z FARAELL t). SAYRE ~ 1Z9 CO10. ~ ~! of the parties to the action, which involved a^ of de- ; I Pendants in error here as they appeared in the trial I ~j court, and pat•ticularly the rights of the parties in and to ' jt' • 4: the sand and gravel contained on and in the premises ~i - - I!' described, being the described land conveyed originally ;tip. by the Carleno deed. c !l. The trial court held that the sand and grave] were t. '' ~t minerals within the meaning of the reservation clause, ' l . ~'. and to this holding error is assigned, as well as to the t 1 finding of the court which gave such an effect to the i i 't reservation clause as was totally repugnant to, and in- ~~-' consistent with, the grant. ' ~~ 1. A most unusual situation is here presented. Some of ~ '. - , the area involved is placer ground; however, it is ad- ~,~ ~ •'•:~ : mitted that the entire surface of the area conveyed by ~. ,: ~ t. the original deed is nothing but sand and gravel. The ~, :; mineral reservation here involved is in genera] terms ,F ~'t~ and does not expressly include sand and gravel. It seems P', to be the general rule that where the surface of land is ' sand and gravel, a straight mineral reservation does not . ~;' ~ include the sand and gravel, and where a similiar situa- 'i :; lion has arisen. the cases turn anon the intent.of the ~ _ parties at the time of the execution of the deed contain- } ing the reservation, when such reservation is in genera] ' terms, and vittually every decision is to the effect that t ';• where the grant in the deed, as here, is nothing but sand n and gravel, it surely was not contemplated that the par- ~.. ~ ties intended to nullify the grant without some direct t ~ :.: ' specification in the reservation. It, is to be noted that a ;~ the time of the making of the so-called Carleno deed, ;: ~• ~*;. . defendant Sayre did not have any thought of the sand , ~.`~ and gravel having commercial value as such. 1; ~' ;: It is apparent that the trial court in considering the , F~::'; question of the intent of the parties at the time of mak- x , :"~ ~.t;~ in the deed with its reservation considered certain actr g ~ li t" # •=~~ ;;r l . of the ]aintiff, Farrel] who was not a art to that p ~ P Y ] E. deed, and apparently it vas influenced by certain other g;. }.E t;_ 4 t .