Mines and Mining

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 Excerpt: ...therefore it was not a license, but something greater, more nearly a lease. With the result reached we have no criticism, but merely with the name given the instrument under consideration. But the Pennsylvania court has a reckless habit of bestowing names upon instruments and contracts, which if it were important might lead to serious difficulty. However, since " a rose would be as sweet by any name," perhaps no quarrel ought to be made with the court if it calls an instrument the same in form, a license one day, a 1 Darke v. Johnston. 55 Pa. St » Grubb v. Bayard, 2 Wall. Jr. 81. 164 11 Fed. Cas. 8a Ante, §114a lease the next, and a sale of the coal or mineral in place on the third. It is the rights which the contract confers, after all, that is important. § 1421. Summary.--From the foregoing we conclude: That a mining license is not materially different from other licenses: it is the privilege to go upon the lands of another and mine and extract the product; that it is not ordinarily exclusive, it being within the power of the licensor to grant a like privilege to others; that it will always bo restricted to the purpose for which it was created; that it differs from a lease or easement in that it does not convey any estate in the land itself; that it may be created either by writing or orally, and is not void under the statute of frauds; that it is sometimes, but not always, assignable, depending upon the nature and objects of its creation; that there is a great contrariety of opinion as to whether it is revocable, the prevailing opinion being apparently to the effect that it is; and that whenever it purports to convey any interest in the land itself, it is elevated to the dignity of an estate in the land itself, and is no longer a...