Kelly v. Rainelle Coal Co.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
64 S.E.2d 606 (1951)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Leckie Smokeless Coal Company (Leckie) owned the coal underlying a tract of land. H. N. Shawver owned the surface of the land. Leckie and Shawver entered a contract that gave Shawver the right to mine coal from the land after Leckie had completed its operations. Shawver then transferred the rights under that contract to G. R. and W. L. Kelly (plaintiffs). The Kellys did some mining on the land but did not have a regular operation. Leckie then entered a second contract with the Rainelle Coal Company (Rainelle) (defendant). Under that agreement, Rainelle had the right to strip-mine the land in exchange for a royalty. Rainelle negotiated with the Kellys regarding their interest, but the negotiations were unsuccessful. Leckie then sent a notice to the Kellys stating that the license to mine the coal was cancelled and that Leckie had therefore not recognized the assignability of the license to mine the coal. Thereafter, Rainelle removed several thousand dollars’ worth of coal. The Kellys sued Rainelle, claiming that they were entitled to damages for their interest in the coal. A jury sided with the Kellys, and Rainelle appealed, claiming that the contract between Leckie and Shawver was a nonassignable bare license to mine for coal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lovins, J.)
Dissent (Given, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.