North American Coal Corp. v. Huber
North Dakota Supreme Court
268 N.W.2d 593 (1978)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Anna Fuchs owned a life estate in the surface of a tract of land; Mark Huber (defendant) owned part of the remainderman interest. Fuchs and several other parties also owned interests in the coal under the tract of land, and Huber had a vested remainder interest in some of the coal. Fuchs and the other parties leased their interests to the North American Coal Corporation (North American) (plaintiff). The lease purported to authorize North American to remove coal from under the land and to use the surface to do so. Huber, however, would not ratify the lease interest. North American sought an order from the trial court authorizing a mining permit, claiming that North Dakota law did not require Huber’s ratification of the lease. The trial court disagreed. North Dakota law allowed mineral owners and mineral developers to obtain from district courts orders authorizing mining operations affecting the surface if surface owners did not agree. However, the district court concluded that this provision required the mineral developer to have an interest in all the minerals in the subject property. Because Huber retained an interest in some of the minerals, the district court concluded that North American was not entitled to the permit it requested. North American appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pederson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
