Hendler v. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 280,, Jan. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1903, No. 276, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in case of Joseph Hendler v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. Trespass to recover damages for excavating and taking common mixed sand. By agreement the case was referred to Rush Trescott, Esq., as referee.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 280,, Jan. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1903, No. 276, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in case of Joseph Hendler v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. Trespass to recover damages for excavating and taking common mixed sand. By agreement the case was referred to Rush Trescott, Esq., as referee. From the record it appeared that on March 3, 1877, the Northern Coal & Iron Company conveyed the land, from which the sand was taken, to Peter Jumper, “ excepting and reserving, however, to the said the Northern Coal and Iron Company, their…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Chibe Justice Mitchell,
The first question presented by this case is whether the sand, the talcing of which is the trespass sued for, is a mineral within the meaning of the deed between the parties.
In the broadest sense, as belonging to one of the three great divisions of matter, animal, vegetable and mineral, sand of course is a mineral. In the more restricted scientific sense sand may or may not be a mineral according to what it is composed of. In the language of mineralogists air and water are minerals while granite and similar rocks are not minerals but aggregations of…
2Cited by38 opinions
- Heinatz v. AllenTexas Supreme Court · 1949
- Faith United Methodist Church & Cemetery of Terra Alta v. MorganWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2013
- Holloway Gravel Co. v. McKowenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1942
- Luse v. BoatmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Yuscavage v. HamlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.