The Earl of Glasgow and John Wilson and Sons, - Appellants; The Hurlet and Campsie Alum Company, and John King, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1850 |
| Date | 02 July 1850 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 10 E.R. 10
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. ix. 1207. On point as to removal of coal pillars, cf. Mundy v. Rutland (Duke of), 1883, 23 Ch. D. 81; Harrison Ainslie and Co. v. Muncaster (1891), 2 Q.B. 680; Trinidad Asphalt Co. v. Ambard (1899), 2 Ch. 260 n (1).
Bill of Exceptions - Mines.
[25] The EARL OF GLASGOW and JOHN WILSON and SONS,-Appellants; The HURLET and CAMPSIE ALUM COMPANY, and JOHN KING,-Respondents [June 25, 26; July 2, 1850]. [Mews' Dig. ix. 1207. On point as to removal of coal pillars, cf. Mundy v. Rutland (Duke of), 1883, 23 Ch. D. 81; Harrison Ainslie and Co. v. Uuncaster (1891), 2 Q.B. 680; Trinidad Asphalt Co. v. Ambturd (1899), 2 Ch. 260 n (1).] Bill of Exceptions-Mines. A bill of exceptions was tendered to a judge's direction, and, under the 55 G. 3, c. 42, s. 7, was signed by him at the time at the trial. The draft, thus prepared, was, some months afterwards, more formally drawn up, and was tendered to him for signature. He refused to sign it, unless a sentence, explaining his direction, was introduced into the bill, and the party excepting finally consented to its introduction. The bill of exceptions, with this explanation forming part of it, was presented to the Court: Held, that the introduction of this1 explanation was highly irregular: but that, being on the record, the Court below, and this House, could only look to the record, and could neither receive an affidavit of the facts, nor examine the draft of the exceptions, originally prepared and signed. A lease of alum mines gave the lessee the right to obtain alum from certain coal wastes. A subsequent lease of the coal mines provided that nothing thereby granted should injure the rights of the parties who held the alum mines. The alum existed in the coal wastes. The coal lessees could not thoroughly work the coal without removing the pillars which supported the roof; but by doing this, the alum would be rendered impossible to be reached: Held, that the coal pillars could not be removed. This was an appeal against an interlocutor of the Court of Session, pronounced 10 glasgow (earl of) v. hurlet alum co. [1850] m h.l.c., ze in a conjoined action of suspension and interdict, and of declarator, arising out of the following circumstances. [26] The Earl of Glasgow was the owner of certain land at Hurlet, which was in many respects very valuable for mining purposes. It contained mineral strata of various descriptions. Nearest the surface of the earth was a stratum of limestone rock, about three feet thick, below which was1 a bed of alum ore, or schistus, of about the same thickness, and below the alum was a seam of coal, of nearly double that extent. The respondent King, and the Company now interested with him, obtained, in the year 1800, a grant of the alum ore for a period of sixty-two years, and the question between the parties related to the manner of working the mines respectively belonging to them. All these mines had been previously worked, and there had been a contract for obtaining all the copperas stones from the coal pits and the coal wastes. Alum, however, having become more valuable, and that which came from these mines being of the best sort, this contract of 1800 was made between the persons composing the Alum Company and the Earl of Glasgow, by which he " does hereby assign, sell, and convey, to , etc., their heirs' or assigns, the whole ore in his said coal pits and coal wastes; at Hurlet, from which alum can be manufactured, excepting the pyrites or copperas stones, which are already conveyed to the partners of the Hurlet Company, to work and collect the said ore in all the old coal pits and coal wastes at Hurlet; to open up old pits where the same may happen to be now shut; to erect gins or other machinery for draining the said ore to the surface, and to make roads and passages for conveying the same from the pits to the adjacent public roads; but reserving to the said Earl his heirs, etc., and the tacksmen of his coal works, lime works, iron stone and other metals, the exclusive use, [27] at all times, of five pits, to be from time to time made choice of for the purpose of working coal, lime, ironstone, and other minerals; and declaring that while these five pits are thus appropriated, the said (grantees of the alum) shall have no right of access thereto, for collecting or cutting out alum therefrom, but in the event of the said Earl, or his foresaids, purposing to work limestone in any of the pits after the coal has been wrought out, and from which the alum ore has not been taken away, he and they shall be bound to give the said (grantees of the alum) two months previous intimation of such intention to work limestone, or, in case of failure, to give such intimation, that they shall shovel the oar aside at their own charges, so as the. same may not be wasted. Further the Earl agrees, that, in the event that he or his foresaids should cease to work the coal and limestone, and should desist from drawing the water out of the waste, the machinery which has been employed for drawing the water shall be sold and delivered over to (the grantees of the alum) at valuation, etc., who shall afterwards have liberty to draw the water from the coal waste during the remainder of this contract. And the Earl binds himself and his foresaids not to fill up any of the pits now open, or hereafter to be opened, for working coal or lime at Hurlet, the (grantees of the alum) hereby becoming bound to fence in a sufficient manner all such pits as shall be left by the Earl or his foresaids within two weeks after being given up. And he likewise grants to them and their foresaids, during the said period, the liberty and privilege of returning the washed ore from their alum works, and depositing the same in any of the coal pits at Hurlet, where the limestone has been previously wrought out. For which causes the said [28] (grantees of the alum) bind themselves to pay to the Earl, his heirs, etc., a clear lordship of one-shilling and sixpence sterling per ton for the whole alum ore to be taken by them from the said pits, free of all charges, etc." For twenty years the works went on at a great profit, both alum and copperas being procured from the ore; but chemical discovery rendered the alum less valuable, and, from time to time, the grantees allowed their works to remain idle. Wilson and Sons became, in 1835, the lessees of the coal and limestone mines for a term of years ending in 1852. In the lease of the coal mines, giving them the right fully to work the coal, there was, among others, the following exception: -" It is hereby declared that nothing herein contained shall in any way injure the rights of the parties who lease the alum and copperas ores from the said Earl of Glasgow." The established mode of working the coal mines up to 1843, had been by what was called stoop and room; the stoop being the pillar which was left for the support of the roof, and the room being the space left between the pillars upon excavating 11 Ill H.L.C., 29 GLASGOW (EARL of) V. HURLET ALUM CO. [1850] the coal. The room was also called the waste, and the fall of the roof which produced what was called the extinction of the waste, was known by the name of a crush. When it once commenced it often extended far beyond the immediate neighbourhood of the pillars actually removed, the lateral pressure destroying the roof for a considerable distance. A crush was always liable to be occasioned by the removal of the coal pillars, and as it rendered the obtaining of the alum impossible, the right of the lessees of the coal to work (that is to say, to remove) the coal-pillars, was the question raised in this case. [29] In 1843 the lessees of the coal began to remove the coal pillars, and a crush of a very extensive nature followed. Some arrangement was for a time made between the parties, but, in November 1846, the grantees of the alum presented a note of suspension and interdict, praying that the lessees of the coal might be prevented '' from cutting out and removing, or weakening and injuring any of the pillars in the coal pits and coal wastes, whereby the same, or any of them, might be shut up, or the access thereto endangered during the remainder of the lease of the alum ore." In answer to the prayer of this suit, the Earl and the lessees of the coal mine insisted that, by the grant of 1800, he was " under no necessity to refrain from working the coal pillars' as well as the other coal on the lands of Hurlet, when circumstances should render this necessary, or when he should think proper to do so." While the case was under discussion, but after an interdict granted, Messrs. Wilson, the lessees of the coal, offered to collect and bring to the mouth of the mine the whole alum ore, either taken from the top of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Bennett
...Lev. 76. Cole v. GreeneENR 1 Lev. 309. Huffer v. AllenELR L. R. 2 Exch. 15. The Earl of Glasgow v. The Hurlet and Campsie Alum CompanyENR 3 H. L. C. 25. Brittain v. Kinnaird 1 Brod. & Bingh. 432. the Queen v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66. Cooper v. PeggENR 16 C. B. 264, 454. Reid v. AshbyENR 13 C. B. ......