State v. Cavour Mining Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $5,181.71. The answer alleged that under the provision of'its lease requiring payment for 5,000 tons of ore per year whether that quantity was mined or not it had paid $1,633.41 before January, 1916, for which, by the terms of the lease, it was entitled to credit when sufficient ore should be mined.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $5,181.71. The answer alleged that under the provision of'its lease requiring payment for 5,000 tons of ore per year whether that quantity was mined or not it had paid $1,633.41 before January, 1916, for which, by the terms of the lease, it was entitled to credit when sufficient ore should be mined. The case was tried before Fesler, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $1,633.41 and interest. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendant appealed.,
1Opinion of the CourtDibeli, J.
This is an action by the state to recover the minimum royalty on a state mining lease for a period when no ore was taken. There were findings and judgment for the state and the defendant appeals.
The state lease provides that the lessee shall on the first day of August in each year pay to the state treasurer the sum of $100 until by the terms of the lease 1,000 tons is required to be mined. One thousand tons is required to be mined within five years after the completion of a railroad within one mile of the land leased. The lease then provides: "And that thereafter there shall be mined and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- United States v. Biwabik Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Lehigh Zinc and Iron Company v. BamfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- State v. Royal Mineral Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Boeing v. OwsleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. ArmsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- State v. Longyear Holding Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- In Re HuffUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 1988
- Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. Lake Superior Consolidated Iron MinesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- State v. Lake Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.