Stewart v. Morris

65 S.E. 1044, 84 S.C. 148, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 245
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 3, 1909
Docket7358
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 65 S.E. 1044 (Stewart v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stewart v. Morris, 65 S.E. 1044, 84 S.C. 148, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 245 (S.C. 1909).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

On May 16, 1900, the Olympia Cotton Mills leased the old Graham quarries, lying in and near Columbia and adjacent to the Olympia Mills, to plaintiff. On September 23, 1903, the plaintiff leased them, together with a quarrying plant, to the defendant, the lease to take effect October 1, 1903. This is a controversy, without action, under section 374 of the Code, to determine whether the plaintiff or the defendant is liable for the rent reserved to the Olympia Cotton Mills, from October 1, 1903, to March 1, 1904, which, it is agreed, amounts to $166.70. The Circuit Court held that the defendant was liable therefor, and gave judgment accordingly. The defendant appealed.

The question arises upon, and is to be determined by, a construction of the two leases.

So much of the lease from the Olympia Mills to the plaintiff as throws light upon the question is as follows: “The party of the second part (Olympia Cotton Mills) agrees that it will lease to the party of the first part (the plaintiff here) the said quarry and so much of the said land as lies adjoining thereto, as is covered by the reservation for quarry purposes above indicated, for the period of ten years from the date of said lease, at an annual rental of four hundred dollars, to be paid annually in rock, such as may be produced from said quarry, suitable for mill purposes or road work, and to be delivered, from time to time, .during each year, as, under its requirements, the party of the second *150 part may call for it, the party of the first part, however, not to be required at any time to deliver more than such proportion thereof as shall correspond to- the portion of the year which may then have elapsed; the price at which such stone is- to be furnished is to be the market price prevailing at such time.

“It is further stipulated and agreed that, at the expiration of the said ten years, so covered by such lease, the party of the first part shall have the right to call for a renewal thereof for a like period of ten years, at a rental to be fixed by arbitration, each party selecting an arbitrator, and the two selecting a third: Provided, however, That this right to a renewal shall not include any portion of the land reserved as adjacent to said quarry, which may at that time be actually needed by the party of the second part for erection of houses thereon, outside of the line of danger from the operations of the said quarry.

“It being desired by the party of the second part to establish a common railroad near to the Granby Cotton Mills and the Olympia Cotton Mills, for the purpose of affording access to the said mills for their present and future requirements, and also- to the quarry hereinbefore referred to, and to the quarry now operated by the Stewart Stone Company, on lands purchased from the Columbia Land and Investment Company, any of the three systems of railroad now owning tracks in that vicinity, or any other railroad company hereafter desiring to- build, to have the privilege of connecting with said common track and over it, of obtaining access to any of the points above stated; to further purposes of the party of the second part, the party of the first part hereby agrees to relinquish its easement for quarry purposes in so much of the Granby railroad track as would be covered by the said common track or by the Southern Railway in laying its spur track to- connect with said common track, such relinquishment to- begin as soon as said common track shall be ready for use, and to be connected with the three systems *151 of railroad above referred to, and to- continue so long as access to the said quarries shall be furnished over the same.

“In the meantime the party of the first part is to have the right to use the track connecting the Granby Railroad track with the S. A. I/, track, for the purposes of said quarries, such right to again become operative- in case of the abandonment or interruption, at any time, of the use of the said common track in such manner as to prevent access over it by the S. A. L. Railroad to said quarries. This is not to be construed as conferring upon the party of the first part the right to grant the privilege of the use of said track for any other purpose than to transfer cars to and from its said quarries.”

The lease from plaintiff to defendant, omitting merely formal points, is as follows: “That the parties of the first part (the plaintiff herein and Stewart 'Stone Company) agree to lease to the party of the second part (the defendant herein) the quarry and plant located near the southern boundary of the city of Columbia, County of Richland, and State of South Carolina, known as the old Graham Quarry, at and for the full unexpired period of the lease of said quarry now held by the Stewart Stone Company from the Olympia Cotton Mills, subject to the provisions and limitations of said lease, and with all the rights and powers conferred upon the Stewart Stone Company by the said lease. The plant included hereby consisting of: (Property enumerated and described.)

“And it is agreed: That the party of the second part shall operate said quarry and shall pay to the party of the first part, for the use of the said quarry and plant aforesaid, a royalty of five cents (5 cents) per ton of two thousand (2,000) pounds; the royalty to be ascertained by taking the weights of the railroad company of all stone shipped: Providedj however, That the party of the second part shall pay to the parties of the first part a minimum royalty on five thousand (5,000') net tons for each and every month; the amount of -stone shipped every month to> be stated, and the *152 royalty therefor to be paid on or before the twentieth (20th) day of each and every month for the shipment of the preceding month.

“It is further stipulated and agreed: That the parties are to have the joint use of the spring near said quarry property for drinking purposes until the same may be destroyed by the progress of quarry operations.

“It is further stipulated and agreed: That neither of the parties of the first part shall, during the continuance of this lease, engage in the business of crushing stone at the city of Columbia, or within ten miles thereof.

“And it is further stipulated and agreed: That the party of the second part shall have the option within three (3) months from the first day of October, 1903, of purchasing the lease of the parties of the first part, now held by them from the Olympia Cotton Mills, and the plant above specified, at the price of fifteen thousand ($15,000') dollars.

“It is further stipulated and agreed: That in case of default in the payment of the royalty hereby reserved and stipulated to be paid by the party of the second part for the period of thirty (30) days, the parties of the first part may elect to treat the lease as terminated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. Bi-Lo, LLC
D. South Carolina, 2019
Heins v. Heins
543 S.E.2d 224 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2001)
Koontz v. Thomas
511 S.E.2d 407 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1999)
Blakeley v. Rabon
221 S.E.2d 767 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1976)
Atlantic American Life Insurance v. Peoples Life Insurance
267 F. Supp. 441 (D. South Carolina, 1967)
Alderman v. Alderman
181 S.E. 897 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1935)
Three States Coal Co. v. Mollohon Mfg. Co.
135 S.E. 380 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 S.E. 1044, 84 S.C. 148, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-morris-sc-1909.