Fairchild v. Fairchild
9 A. 255, 6 Sadler 231, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 614
Opinion
That a demise of all the coal under the surface of a specified piece of land is a sale of the coal is now too well fortified by authority to be successfully questioned in Pennsylvania.
The cases affirming this conclusion are cited in the opinion of the learned judge, and fully sustain the judgment he entered on the case stated.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fairchild v. Fairchild, 9 A. 255, 6 Sadler 231, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 614 (Pa. 1887).
9 A. 255 (Fairchild v. Fairchild) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
New Silver Bell Mining Co v. County of Lewis & Clark
284 P.2d 1012 (Montana Supreme Court, 1955)
Bankers Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Central Pocahontas Coal Co.
166 S.E. 491 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1932)
Caruso v. Caruso
141 A. 16 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1928)
Robinson v. Pierce
123 A. 324 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Musgrave v. Musgrave
103 S.E. 302 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1920)
Smith's Estate
69 Pa. Super. 376 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)
Poole v. Union Trust Co.
157 N.W. 430 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co.
219 F. 31 (Eighth Circuit, 1914)
Palms v. Palms
36 N.W. 419 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1888)