Hammel v. C. M. Hill Lumber Co.

1. The petition of the defendant for reargument was granted. In granting it we suggested that it might aid the court if counsel discussed the effect of the cancelation of the sublease on June 22, 1925, upon the advance royalties and the right thereafter to mine against them. This question was not fully discussed at the first hearing; and we were subject to the just criticism of deciding the case upon a point not made the chief one on appeal.

The matter has been orally argued at length and fully reconsidered. We are convinced that we were right. We need not add to what was said in the first…