Williams v. Phiel

60 Fla. 272
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJune 15, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 60 Fla. 272 (Williams v. Phiel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Phiel, 60 Fla. 272 (Fla. 1910).

Opinion

Hockek, J.

Defendant in error, Phiel, brought a suit in the circuit court of Hillsborough county against the plaintiffs in error, J. C. Williams and E. W. Clark, in June, 1909. The declaration is as follows:

“A. C. Phiel,
Plaintiff,
vs.
J. C. Williams and E. W. Clark,
Defendants.

Hillsborough County, to-wit:

The plaintiff, A. C. Phiel by C. C. Whitaker and Glen & Himes, his attorneys, sues the defendants J. C. Williams and E. W. Clark for this to-wit: that heretofore, to-wit, on the 5th day of November, 3907, the plaintiff and the defendants made and entered into a contract in writing, under seal, in the words and figures following, to-wit:

THIS INDENTURE, Made on the 5th day of November, A. D. 1907, by and between A. C. Phiel of St. Petersburg, [274]*274Hillsborough County, State of Florida, party of the first part, and J. C. Williams and E. W. Clark of the same city, State and county of the second part:

WITNESSETH, That the said party of the first part, for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns,, in consideration of the sum of one dollar to him in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the royalties, covenants and agreements hereinafter mentioned on the part of the second parties to be kept and performed, do hereby give and grant unto the said second parties their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, the exclusive right of phosphate mining, or mining for phosphate on the lands hereinafter described, under the terms, conditions, stipulations and agreements hereinafter contained, the land .upon which the second parties are given the privilege to enter and mine being more particularly described as follows, to-wit:

All the land lying between the rock road and the right of way of the LOG ROAD of which is known as the West Coffee Lumber Company’s Log Road in the Northwest quarter (NW 1/4) of Section Twenty (20), Township Nineteen (19) South, Range Twenty (20) East; also Blocks Number Sixty-two (62), Sixty-three (63), Sixty-four (64) and Sixty-five (65), with the exception of a lot in the Southwest Corner of Block 65, which lot has been deeded as a colored cemetery, said Blocks being a part of the town of Inverness, and to the North and adjoining the above described quarter section, 64 and 65 adjoining the same.

This indenture being for the purpose of permitting the parties of the second part to search for Phosphate Rock, and Phosphate deposits thereon, and to erect buildings, and conduct mining operations upon said property, to place machinery, railroads or railroad tracks, tram roads, [275]*275or to do any other act or thing that may be necessary in conducting such mining operations, and the marketing of the same.

The parties of the second part agree and bind themselves that they, their heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns shall pay, or cause to be paid to the party of the first part, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, the sum of one dollar and twenty-five cents ($1.25) per ton as royalty for each and every ton of phosphate rock that may be mined and shipped from said property.

The parties of the second part agree to equip the property mentioned herein with the necessary buildings, machinery, roads, etc. to handle the product with facility and rapidly, placing a sufficient number of mills or plants on the land for that purpose and in such places as will accomplish that result in the shortest possible time, and parties of the second part agree that they will dig, mine and ship from the first plant so erected not less than ten thousand tons of phosphate each year. The opérations to commence ninety days from the date of this indenture, and to continue during the life of this indenture, except as otherwise stipulated and agreed herein; unless prevented by something beyond the control of the parties of the second part.

In the event the second parties shall fail to mine and ship the amount of phosphate as stipulated above from said lands for any one year on account of the low price of phosphate, then any excess which said second parties may have paid royalties on over said minimum tonnage of preceding years, shall be allowed as a credit on the royalties to accrue during the succeeding year, or during the no mining period.

Parties of the second part , are to* make no shipments, or permit any shipments to be made of any product from the land unless an agreement is first obtained from the party of the first part except such as is herein specifically [276]*276mentioned. The parties of the second part are to keep a correct account of all phosphate rock mined and shipped from said lands, and the payments of royalties shall be made according to railroad weights as the rock may be shipped, and any railroad transporting the said rock is hereby authorized and directed to give statements and copies of bills of lading to any agent or authorized representative of the said party of the first part of any and all shipments of phosphate rock, or any other product tüat may be made from time to time during this contract, and the parties of the second part shall render statements of such shipments to the party of the first part whenever requested to do so, and the books of the parties of the second part shall be open to the inspection of the party of the first part, or his authorized agents.

The party of the first part agrees to assist the parties of the second part to secure wood from the mill now located near or adjacent to the tract of land herein described, said mill being now known as the West Coffee Lumber Company Mill, second parties to have one-half of all the wood at the best terms possible.

Parties of the second part have the right to terminate this agreement if at any time during the pendency thereof it shall appear from the mining operations actually conducted that the matrix contains less than ten per cent merchantable phosphate, and that there be no longer phosphate deposits on the said lands which could be practically mined, the matrix showing less than ten per cent merchantable phosphate. However, if the parties of the second part shall desire to terminate this agreement by reason of the matrix showing less than ten per cent merchantable phosphate rock, they shall give thirty days prior notice in writing to the party of the first part of such intention, and an opportunity shall be afforded the party of the first part to be present and witness any test that may be made [277]*277attempting to show that the merchantable phosphate is less than ten per cent of the matrix:

The parties of the second part may further terminate this contract on thirty days prior notice in writing when it shall satisfactorily appear that the phosphate deposits shall have become so scattered or exhausted in quantity as not to admit of practical mining operations.

In connection with the mining operations the party of the second part agrees not to cover any deposits of merchantable phosphate on.said land by dumping thereon the overburden or the water and debris from the plant, but such refuse matter shall be conducted to such points as not to interfere with or cover merchantable phosphate deposits that may exist on said lands.

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

Related

State v. Wells
308 So. 2d 163 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Town of Crescent City v. Green
59 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1951)
US Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
55 So. 2d 741 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1951)
Florida Forest & Park Service v. Eston Strickland
18 So. 2d 251 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1944)
Tanner v. Batson
166 So. 545 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Williams v. Phiel
63 So. 658 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1913)
Ross v. Savage
63 So. 148 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1913)
Martin v. Walsenburg Fuel Co.
200 F. 270 (D. Colorado, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 Fla. 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-phiel-fla-1910.