{ "id": 8721422, "name": "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Thompson, Trustee, v. Furqueron", "name_abbreviation": "Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Furqueron", "decision_date": "1946-10-07", "docket_number": "4-7887", "first_page": "460", "last_page": "463", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "210 Ark. 460" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "196 S.W.2d 588" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "202 Ark. 645", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1450004 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/202/0645-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 363, "char_count": 5210, "ocr_confidence": 0.489, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.7187897892673856e-07, "percentile": 0.8300101666158916 }, "sha256": "1619a3696ba574be9d3f3355168d6af41c2f5122c58321a5f325baf1fe251458", "simhash": "1:019acc755c2e3a0b", "word_count": 885 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:55.346799+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "McFaddiN, Justice, dissents." ], "parties": [ "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Thompson, Trustee, v. Furqueron." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Holt, J.\nBy an act of Congress of the United States, July 28, 1866 (14, Stat. L, p. 338), certain grants of land in Arkansas were made to the St. Lonis, Iron Mountain & Southern Eailway Co. Later, all rights in this land under the grant were acquired by the Missouri Pacific Eailroad Company. The act also contained the following provision: \u201cThat all mineral lands within the limits of this grant and the grant made iii \u00a7 2 of this Act are hereby reserved to the United States,\u201d and further provided that the Secretary of the Interior issue patents from time to time \u201cfor all lands granted\u201d upon proper showing of completion of parts of the railroad, etc.\nOn December 12, 1892, the Iron Mountain Eailroad Company deeded one of the two tracts of land involved here to the Big Woods Lumber Company, and on March 131, 1894, the Company deeded the other tract to H. C. Lee. Both deeds contained the following reservation: \u201cAlso reserving all coal and mineral deposits in and upon said lands, with the right to said party of the first \u25a0part, its successors and assigns, at any and all times to enter upon said lands, and to mine and remove any and all coal and mineral deposits found thereon, without any claim for damages on behalf of said second party, his heirs or assigns.\u201d\nAppellees are the present owners of these two tracts of land subject to the above reservation and they brought separate, similar suits (consolidated by the court below for the purpose of trial) to quiet their title by cancelling the reservation, it being their contention that the reservation of \u201call coal and mineral deposits\u201d did not include oil, gas and distillate, as contended by appellant.\nIn compliance with the provisions of \u25a0\u00a7 13600 of Pope\u2019s Digest, enacted in 1929, the mineral rights in question have been separately assessed for taxation, and taxes thereon paid by the Missouri Pacific Eailroad Com-pauy, or its present trastee, since and including the year 1932.\nBy stipulation of the parties in the trial below: \u201cIt is admitted that present title to the land in question is owned by plaintiffs, subject to defendant\u2019s reservation set forth in deeds of St. Louis, Iron Mountain's Southern Railway Company aforementioned described as follows: \u2018Reserving, however, the right of way to the said Railroad Company 100 ft. wide where the track of said Railroad, or its branches has been or may be laid over said land, also reserving all coal and mineral deposits in and upon said lands with the right of safd party of the first part, its successors and assigns at any time to enter upon said lands and to mine and remove any and all coal and mineral deposit found thereon without any claim for damage on behalf of said second party,- his heirs or assigns. \u2019 The specific point here at issue is whether the aforesaid reservation includes oil and gas.\u201d\nFrom a decree finding the issues in favor of appel- \u25a0 lees comes this appeal*\nOn the threshold of this cause, we are confronted with a former opinion of this court (made by six of its members, \u2014 one judge not participating) in Missouri Pacific Rd. Co., Thompson, Trustee, v. Strohacker, 202 Ark. 645, 152 S. W. 2d 557, delivered May 26, 1941, which involved the construction of reservations in two deeds made by the appellants here, predecessors in title, in 1892 and 1893, wherein the identical language \u201creserving all coal and mineral deposits in and upon said lands, etc.,\u201d was used as that used-in the two deeds in question here.\nAppellees earnestly argue that the opinion in that case controls here, and we agree.\nWhile the record in the present case reflects some additional testimony, in effect, it is substantially the same as that in the Strohacker case, supra, to which reference is made for a somewhat detailed statement of the facts. Appellant insists with much earnestness, however, tbat we should overrule the Strohacker case as being unsound and not in accord with the weight of authority. We cannot agree.\nThe question decided in the Strohacker case was the identical question decided-in the present case: \u201cDoes a reservation of coal and mineral deposits reserve oil, gas and other minerals?\u201d The deeds in the Strohacker case bore approximately the same dates as the two deeds in question here and all these deeds conveyed tracts of land in Miller county, Arkansas. In that case, we held (headnote 5): \u201cBy excluding from deeds executed in 1892 and 1893 \u2018all coal and mineral deposits\u2019 pertaining to lands in Miller county, Arkansas, accruing to railroad company through government graiits, the company no doubt had in mind, as did its grantees, only substances then commonly recognized as minerals; and in view of such intent the language was not sufficient to reserve oil and gas.\u201d\nSince we hold that the principles of law announced and set forth in the Strohacker case control here, it could serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence or restate the law as set forth in that opinion. Accordingly, the decree is affirmed.\nMcFaddiN, Justice, dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Henry Bonham and Pat Mehaffy, for appellant.", "George F. Edwardes, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Thompson, Trustee, v. Furqueron.\n4-7887\n196 S. W. 2d 588\nOpinion delivered October 7, 1946.\nHenry Bonham and Pat Mehaffy, for appellant.\nGeorge F. Edwardes, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0460-01", "first_page_order": 476, "last_page_order": 479 }