OCR Text |
Show KETCHUM COAL CO, IS DENIED COAL LANDS Yesterday tho supremo court handed down a decision to coal land owners of great valuo In Carbon county, dony-lng dony-lng ownorshlp to tho Ketchum Coal company. Tho lands, consisting of 160 ncroB In tho Castlcgato district, originally were sold for $-1000 and havo boen developed devel-oped to a valuation of soveral million dollars. Tho history of tho case dates back to May 14, 1888, when Stephen R. Marks filed a declarator' statement on them, later conveying them to Williams Wil-liams and Gobs, tho transfer being mado, howovor, prior to tho timo of patent. Williams and Goss, in turn, conyoyod thorn to tho Pleasant Valloy Coal company, which, with tho Denver & Rio Grando railroad, was named as defendant In tho original action which was trlod in tho Carbon county district court. In 1013, twonty yoars after he had conveyed the property to tho Pleasant , Valley Coal company, and after the latter. had Insured Its rights, Marks gave a deed to the property to C. N. Sweot," who conveyed it to T. A. Ketchum, and the. latter transferred It to the Ketchum Coal company, which is made up of Ogden capital. Seeking to establish Its right to tho lands, tho Ketchum Coal company began be-gan proceedings against the Pleasant Valloy Coal company and tho Denver & Rio Grande railroad to quiet title, claiming that the Pleasant Valley Coal company and the Denver & Rio Grando railroad had no right to the property, on the ground that Marks had no patent pat-ent at the time he conveyed tho lands to Williams and Goss. Tho Carbon county court held that the Ketchum Coal company was entitled en-titled to condemn a strip of land sixty feet wide on tho Pleasant Valloy Coal company's holdings, but It could not condemn any of the property of tho Donver &. Rio Grande railroad. The Denver & Rio Grande is involved In tho suit only so far as its right of way through the property is concerned. Chief Justice Frlck, in writing tho opinion, has found that the plaintiff concedes tho title to the lands passed to Marks by reason of tho patont having hav-ing been issued to him, and "In that connection, however, tho plaintiff also contends that both Williams and Goss wero disqualified from acquiring or holding coal lands for tho roason that when Marks deeded tho land to them both Williams and Goss had exhausted exhaust-ed their rights to hold lands from tho government," |