PERMFILE100850 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the materials before it leaves the pit. Shaw testified the continuing of the sand and gravel operation by Sutherland would be a benefit to him so far as the exercise of his mineral rights since he doesn't have any permits, first of all; and secondly, he could not remove the 600 to 700 tons of head ore a day necessary for his operation. II. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT In specifically addressing the claims for declaratory judgment, the Court has reviewed the briefs, arguments and authorities cited to the Court by the parties and, for the reasons set forth below, hereby rules and declares in favor of Defendant and Defendant/Intervenors that the reservation and exception in favor of Plaintiffs described in that warranty deed dated May 30, 1989 does not include the sand and gravel in, under or upon the five placer mining claims. With respect to Plain- tiff/Intervenors, the Court hereby rules and declares that said Plaintiff/Intervenors have no rights [o the sand and gravel with respect to the placer mining claims. Through the various conveyances, documents and exhibits contained in the Court file, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs are owners of 12-1/2% of the mineral interests and Plain- tiff/Intervenors own 75% of the mineral interests. The remaining 12-1/2% is owned by Cecil Billingsly. The question for the Court is whether or not the language of the reservations set forth above include sand and gravel. First of all, the parties are in agreement that these five placer mining claims described above are patented mining claims as opposed to unpatented mining claims as exist on Federal land. The parties are in agreement that a reservation of mineral rights on unpatented mining claims do not include sand and gravel, and the cases construing this language with reference to unpatented mining claims make clear that sand and gravel is not considered part of a mineral reservation thereon. In this case we are dealing with patented mining claims situated along the San Miguel River which totals approximately 1,051 acres being 34 [0 35 percent of the total acres making up the San Miguel Ranch. The parties have directed the Court's attention to the case law addressing these questions, particular- ly Farrell v. Sayre, 129 Colo. 368, 270 P.2d 190 (Colo. 1954); Corlett v. Cox, 333 P.2d 619 (Colo. 1959)(oil and gas only); Morrison v. Socolofskv, 600 P.2d 121 (Colo. App. 1979); and Radke v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 334 P.2d 1077. deed: The Farrell case involved the following language in a 11