PERMFILE100850 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• s must be resolved against Plaintiff as drafter of the legal description. Likewise, the addition of the words "mineral rights" and "mining rights" offer no help in ascertaining whether or not sand and gravel was intended to be included in the mineral reservation. Therefore, the Court does not find that the reservation used by Plaintiffs encompasses sand and gravel after application of the standards set forth in Ferrell and Morrison. The matter is even more clear as applied to the Plain- tiff/Intervenors. At least the Plaintiff had included the word "stone" in their reservation, however Plaintiff/Intervenors reservations clearly relate only to minerals, metals and metal- liferous materials. while Mr. Shaw, now, believed his grandpar- ents may have intended to use sand and gravel when they reserved their mineral rights many years ago, there is no evidence to support this. B. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The parties are aware of the controlling case law concerning the issuance of a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65. The black letter case is Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1982). This case sets out the six recognized criteria for the Court to consider in issuing an injunction and provides that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy designed to protect the plaintiff from sustaining irreparable injury and to preserve the power of the district court to render a meaning- ful decision following a trial on the merits. As it relates to the Plaintiff/Intervenors, the Court will not grant a preliminary injunction. As set forth above, [he Court has found by its declaratory judgment that Plaintiff/- Intervenors have no interest whatsoever in the sand and gravel rights relating to these five placer mining claims. Plaintiff/- Intervenors are the owners of 75 percent of the mineral rights, however, as set forth above, but the testimony indicates that Plaintiff/Intervenors have only the resources and abilities to u exercise their mineral rights so long as the sand and gravel (~ ~ operation continues. Plaintiff/Intervenors are claiming a loss eC~ of precious metals by the hauling away of sand and gravel which Si„/' includes the foss of the so-called black sand material, however, `~ the Court has found that the quantities and values are de mini- mis. The testimony established that there are some black sand deposits in the gravel pit operation, which consists of approximately nine permitted acres, however, the testimony shows that an independent mining operation to process these black sand deposits is not economically feasible at this point in time and can only be conducted by processing the washed materials and fine 18