Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Ark. 317

Russell v. Berry

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 5, 1902

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1902-04-05

Jeremiah G. Wallace, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. W. H. Miller was the owner of .a rural homestead, consisting of about 100 acres, which was underlaid with coal. Miller had opened up mines on this land, and had worked the 'mines in a small way, and marketed the coal, and had also at times leased these mines to be operated for the purpose of mining coal.

Relies on Stayton v. Halpern

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1902-04-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1984

1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

20190219101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Riddick, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts.) The only question in this case is whether coal which underlies land of a homestead is a part of the homestead. It is admitted that the value of this homestead is not over $2,500, and if this stratum of coal which underlies the homestead land is a part of the homestead, it follows that it cannot be reached by the administrator or creditors until after the expiration of a homestead estate. Our state constitution provides that if the owner of a homestead die, leaving a widow, “the rents and profits thereof shall vest in her during her natural life,” provided that if the owner leaves children, they “shall share with the widow, and be entitled to half the rents and profits till each of them arrives at twenty-one years of age.” Const. 1874, art. 9, § 6.

¶2Now, it has been correctly stated that the term profits “comprehends the produce of the soil, whether it arises above or below the surface; as herbage, wood, turf, coal, minerals, stones; also fish in a pond or running water.” Bouv. Law Diet. Therefore, if the owner of the land in fee grant to another the rents and profits of such land, to have and to hold the same to him and his heirs, the whole land passes by the grant; “for what,” asks Sir Edward Coke, “is the land but the profits thereof?” Coke, Littleton, 4b; Bapalje & Lawrence, Diet. Land has an indefinite extent, both, upward and downward, and includes not only the surface of the earth, but everything beneath it. 2 Blackstone, Comm. 18. As the constitution gives to the widow and children the rents and profits of the homestead, this, in effect, gives them the use of the whole land. Conceding, then, the contention of counsel for appellant, that this coal is a part of the land itself, yet, as all of the land is included in the homestead estate, the probate court cannot order the land, or any part of it, sold until the homestead rights of the widow and children have terminated. Stayton v. Halpern, 50 Ark. 329. Whether the widow and children have the right to mine and sell the coal is a different question, which we do not decide.

¶3Our conclusion is that this stratum of coal, which the administrator is endeavoring to have subjected to the debts of the estate, is a part of the homestead, and is protected from sale to the same extent that the homestead is protected. It follows that, in our opinion, the judgment of the circuit court is right, and it is therefore affirmed.

/70/ark/317 · .json · Public domain