Legal Opinion

Bache v. Central Coal & Coke Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 12, 1917PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. Plaintiff had no right to tear down and remove the tipple. Jones Landl. & Ten., § 590', 103 Ind. 203. The provisions of the lease as to removal are absolutely controlling.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. Plaintiff had no right to tear down and remove the tipple. Jones Landl. & Ten., § 590', 103 Ind. 203. The provisions of the lease as to removal are absolutely controlling. Jones Landl. & Ten., § 713; 41 Conn. 471; 23 Vt. 222; 50 Atl. 1092; 48 Id. 38. A tipple is machinery like a railroad track. 86 N. E. 837; 81 N. E. 1103; 64 S. E. 65. It does not come within the definition of “machinery.” 85 Fed. 218; 11 So. 41; 81 Fed. 289; 21 So. 167. 2. Appellee had no right to remove machinery after the lease expired. Jones…

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

This is a suit in replevin brought by the Central Coal & Coke Company against John Shaleen, and other defendants, who are the appellants- here. The suit was brought to recover possession of certain property belonging to a mine which was owned by the Hartford Coal Company, which mine was by that company leased to the plaintiff Central Coal & Coke Company, hereinafter referred to as the appellee. The Hartford Coal Company, a corporation, leased certain lands to E. W. Hoffman for coal mining purposes. Hoffman assigned the lease to the Hoffman Coal Company, which later failed, and, by proper…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Washington Gas Light Co. v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Wright v. MacDonnellTexas Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Shellar v. ShiversSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  4. Ozark v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
  5. Mickle & Co. v. DouglasSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. Birmingham Rail & Locomotive Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1953
  2. Bank of Shelbyville v. HartfordCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1937
  3. Continental Gin Co. v. ClementSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  4. Lemmons v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1974
  5. Buscaglia v. Tribunal de Contribuciones de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1947

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API