PERMFILE67630 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i • • App Apr. '79] Morrison v. Socolofsky 213 Division !!. Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE ENOCH. Defendants appeal from a declaratory judgment that language in a warranty deed reserving "oil, gas and other minerals" did not operate to reserve gravel on the property. We affirm. In 1953, Fred C. Kluver deeded the farmland in question to defen- :c in a dams, reserving for himself a life estate consisting of the right to remove i:lte to gravel for his own use. In 1954 defendants conveyed the land to intermedi- ate purchasers, the Bakers, by warranty deed. This decd expressly reserved to defendants "an undivided one-half of all oil, gas and other minerals un- derlying the premises with the right to enter for exploration and ,:drd - removal . ." ,,1ftC1Ot In 1959, the Bakers conveyed the property to other intermediate pur- ~n~cular chasers, reserving to themselves for 10 years one-half of the unreserved oil, decd, gas and other mineral rights, and "reserving unto Fred C. Kluver the right """"'g to remove gravel for his own use." The land was conveyed f-finally to plain- ~~i, and tiffs in 1963, "subject to oil reservations of record and the right of Fred C. Kluver to remove gravel." ~idered Plaintiffs brought this action to determine who owned the rights to ~~~tt<~"~ the gravel on the property because Kluver's life estate had terminated. De- i~" in- Pendants asserted that by their 1954 reservation they had reserved the ~- maps frilling gravel for themselves as part of the "oil, gas and other minerals." After cd the listening to extensive testimony, the court found that the 1954 reservation _~"oval in the deed to Baker did not include the right to gravel deposits. There- fulness fore, the court declared that plaintiffs, as successor grantees, owned the "'• lh0 gravel rights. Defendants contend that the court erred in admitting evidence from the mining and commercial marketplace on the scope and meaning of the term "mineral." We find no error. ~1] Plaintiffs premised their action for declaratory relief on the con- tention that, as a matter of law, gravel was not included under the um- brella o(the reservation of "other minerals." The reservation of "al{ min- erals" is inherently ambiguous. United States v. !,253.!4 Acres of .I L, Land, 455 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir. 1972). And, in deciding whether, as a ' matter of law, a particular substance is a "mineral," the applicable test is for the court to determine: .loots- "'what that word means in the vernacular of the mining world, the com- mercial world, and landowners at the time of the grant, and whether the particular substance was so regarded as a mineral .. . " Farrell v. Sayre, 129 Colo. 368, 270 P.2d 190 (1954). I~ ~ ~