Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~ <br />lease is to be placed in the school fund, and all mineral <br />rights must be reserved to the State. <br />In compliance with this and the State's own policies, <br />the patent herein did reserve rights to minerals to the State. <br />The question now arises whether or not the clay deposit on a <br />portion of this ground is a mineral. The Land Board has taken <br />the position that clay is a mineral and has leased the right <br />to extract the clay to the Robinson Brick and Tile Company. <br />The plaintiff's position is that clay is not a mineral <br />and that she is entitled to the clay and that the Robinson <br />Brick and Tile Company have no right to remove it from the <br />property. <br />Expert testimony offered by the plaintiff was by <br />Dr. Paul G. Harold, who is the head of metallurgy department <br />of Colorado School of Mines, whose opinion is that clay is not <br />a mineral. Defendants' expert, Mr. Lewis Dorr, a graduate of <br />the Colorado School of Mines and the superintendent of the <br />Robinson Brick and Tile Company, gave his opinion that clay is <br />a mineral. <br />Neither counsel was able to cite to the Court any <br />Colorado cases exactly on point. <br />The evidence indicates that this land adjoins some <br />other land that the plaintiff owns, and that the entire farm <br />is used as a wheat farni. Further, the testimony indicated <br />that approximately 20 acres .out of the total of 160 acres con- <br />tains clay. Dr. Harold went upon the ground and dug down three <br />and one-half feet to obtain samples, which are exhibits in this <br />case, indicating the presence of Dakota clay. Mr. Dorr also <br />has made tests on the property that indicate the presence of <br />2 <br />