You are here: / / MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL.

MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL.

The Third Department explained the meaning of mineral rights (as opposed to surface rights) as that term appeared in a 1917 deed. The court held that the term encompassed all inorganic material, including sand and gravel:

Supreme Court correctly determined as a matter of law that those mineral rights that plaintiffs owned and that were originally derived from a 1917 deed from a grantor, who was the common grantor of plaintiffs’ mineral rights and at least certain of [defendant’s]  surface rights, included the right to extract and remove sand and gravel. The Court of Appeals has directly passed on the meaning of the term “minerals” as used in a conveyance and concluded that the term “will include all inorganic substances [that] can be taken from the land” where the term’s meaning is not restricted “b[y] qualifying words, or language, evidencing that the parties contemplated something less general than all substances legally cognizable as minerals” … . Thus, unless qualifying and restrictive language related to the term minerals renders the term ambiguous in any particular conveyance, the meaning of minerals is determinable as a matter of law and is not subject to extrinsic proof … . The 1917 deed conveyed a minerals estate that included “all . . . minerals in, under and upon” the specified properties together with the right to “dig, mine and remove” those minerals from the land free from any liability for damage. Accordingly, given that the language in the 1917 deed does not qualify or restrict the term minerals, the Court of Appeals’ interpretation controls. Therefore, as sand and gravel are “inorganic substances [that] can be taken from the land,” they fall within the mineral rights conveyed by the 1917 deed … . Champlain Gas & Oil, LLC v People of The State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01610, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

REAL PROPERTY (MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL)/MINERAL RIGHTS (MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL)/SAND AND GRAVEL (REAL PROPERTY, (MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL)/MINERAL RIGHTS (MINERAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE SAND AND GRAVEL)

You might also like
Finding that Claimant’s Absenteeism Was Not Disqualifying Misconduct Was Supported by Substantial Evidence; Courts’ Review Powers in this Context Explained
JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.
“Strangulation” Conviction Affirmed
THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE SEX OFFENDERS CAN RESIDE AFTER RELEASE FROM PRISON, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).
THE 1896 DEED FROM THE PLAINTIFF WHICH TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE WITH THE LIMITATION THAT IT BE USED AS A CHURCH CREATED A POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER WHICH TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE PLAINTIFF WHEN THE PROPERTY STOPPED BEING USED AS A CHURCH IN 2015 (THIRD DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE TENANT ABANDONED THE LEASED PREMISES AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FOR THE PERIODS BEFORE AND AFTER TENANT WAS LOCKED OUT; TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH REMAINED IN THE LEASED PREMISES AFTER THE LOCKOUT (THIRD DEPT).
THE CANDIDATE SIGNED THE SUBSCRIBING WITNESS STATEMENT WHICH INDICATED EACH VOTER SIGNED THE DESIGNATING PETITION IN HIS PRESENCE, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE, DESIGNATING PETITION WAS PROPERLY INVALIDATED BASED UPON THE CANDIDATE’S PARTICIPATION IN FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY (THIRD DEPT).
PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (B), WHEN DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION APPEARED WITHOUT COUNSEL AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THEY WERE ENTITLED TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST... PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED...