Ward v. Harding

In the early 1900s, broad form deeds became a popular method of businesses to obtain mineral rights from landowners. The deeds used boilerplate language and were filled in by businesses. The landowners then agreed to transfer the subsurface mineral rights to the businesses. At the time, underground mining was the main method of extracting coal pursuant to the broad form deeds; strip mining had not yet been invented. But as technology improved, strip mining became a viable method of removing previously unmineable coal. Strip mining, however, destroyed the surface of the land. Decades after many broad form deeds had been entered, parties who held the mineral rights under the deeds began claiming that the deeds authorized strip mining, even though that form of technology was not in existence at the time the deeds were entered. In Buchanan v. Watson, the Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that broad form deeds authorized strip mining, reasoning that the deeds authorized any and all methods of retrieving coal without any damages to the surface owner. This was a controversial decision that prompted the Kentucky legislature to pass a statute purporting to require courts to construe mineral deeds in light of the technology available at the time the deeds were executed. Relying on stare decisis, the Kentucky Supreme Court invalidated that statute in Akers v. Baldwin, although there were several dissents. Kentucky voters then approved a constitutional amendment requiring instruments of conveyance to be construed in light of the known methods at the time of execution, absent evidence to the contrary. A mineral owner (plaintiff) claimed that the amendment was unconstitutional; the surface owner (defendant) disagreed.